2017 QCCQ 6032, 2017 QCCQ 6032

Protection de la jeunesse — 172641 2017 QCCQ 6032 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-028763-142 Date: February 21, 2017 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 21, 2017, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a Motion for revision of an order rendered by the undersigned, on December 3, 2015, whereby the now fifteen year-old adolescent, X , was entrusted to a CROM Rehabilitation Center Resource for a period of five months with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the Motion for revision dated September 26, 2016, are as follows: 3.1. in early April 2016, the adolescent returned to the mother’s care; 3.2. during July and August 2016, the adolescent and the mother moved into the Espresso Hotel with the father, who was recovering from his kidney transplant; 3.3. at the end of August 2016, the father returned to live in City A; 3.4. there are frequent conflicts between the adolescent and the mother, mostly surrounding the adolescent’s wish to go out with friends; 3.5. on two (2) occasions September 2016, the adolescent left home without notice and without permission, went to visit friends at the Espresso Hotel; 3.6. each time the mother contacted the police, who located the adolescent at the hotel; 3.7. on September 25, 2016, when located by the police, the adolescent stated that she did not wish to return to the mother’s care; 3.8. the mother similarly agreed for the adolescent to be placed in a rehabilitation centre; 3.9. on September 25, 2016, immediate protective measures were invoked and the adolescent was maintained in a rehabilitation centre;

3.10. the next morning, the adolescent changed her mind and wished to return home, but the mother was not yet ready to have the adolescent return home; 3.11. the father is not in a position to have the adolescent entrusted to his care (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] The hearing on the merits began on October 31, 2016. The Director then recommended that the adolescent be entrusted to her mother on an interim basis, noting that: Ms.

A has made exceptional progress in her parenting [2] [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Macload, admitted all the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] Although the father was unable to attend the hearing he wrote a letter expressing his consent to the proposed measures [3] . [ 7 ] The adolescent, assisted by Me Harvey, also admitted all the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 8 ] The hearing was continued on February 21, 2017. [ 9 ] The parties then all agreed that the adolescent should remain entrusted to the care of her mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until June 30, 2017. [ 10 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-6 to D-8 as evidence: D-6: Court Report, written by [Social Worker 1], dated October 4, 2016; D-7: Letter from the father dated October 27, 2016; D-8: Addendum, written by [Social Worker 1], dated February 1, 2017. [ 11 ] In

summary, despite the progress that has been made, the need for ongoing social intervention is acknowledged and many services are in place to support the family, more particularly to teach the adolescent to better protect herself: […] X still struggles with her emotions and her behaviours have placed her in risky and dangerous situations.

X’s intellectual and emotional deficits and trusting nature make it difficult for her to see those risks clearly. [4] [ 12 ] She has been encouraged to report a man who was sexually abusing her and the police are investigating the situation. [ 13 ] She has since been working with an educator to learn about “internet-safety, boundaries, risk and sexual health” [5] . [ 14 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the adolescent's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to the care of her mother; [ 18 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent continue to engage with all of her service providers (i.e.

CROM educator, CROM psychologist, [Centre A] educator, Art therapist); [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that that adolescent will also continue to receive services from Mrs.

Louise Dessertine, psychologist; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent’s medical, educational and therapeutic needs be met in a timely manner; [ 22 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to follow the recommendations of her treating professionals; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to share and obtain relevant information with all the treating professionals involved with the family; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 26 ] THE WHOLE until June 30, 2017. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sonia Harvey Attorney for the adolescent Me Heather Macload Attorney for the mother TD/vl