2010 QCCQ 14336, 2010 QCCQ 14336

Protection de la jeunesse — 101343 2010 QCCQ 14336 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION No: 500-41-000753-940 DATE: May 4, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the case of : X Born on […] , 1994 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 4, 2010, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered January 22, 2009, ordering that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year with a social follow-up for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the Director’s motion are the following: • Since the last court date, the adolescent had remained in the A Unit, where the staff report that her behaviour is improving; • The adolescent still encounters difficulties with certain relationships; however, she has improved considerably in this regard; • The adolescent continues to require support in solidifying the trust and acceptance with her mother and other family members; • The adolescent has weekly visits at home which are reportedly positive; • The mother and adolescent have benefited greatly from the A Program; • The adolescent completed fourteen sessions with a psychologist and refused to attend any more sessions; • In or around February 28, 2009, the adolescent ran away from a home visit after an argument with her mother and returned to the A Unit, on the following afternoon; • The adolescent has been doing well academically; • The mother still encounters certain personal difficulties, however for the most part she has stabilized her life and has refrained from drug consumption. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months with gradual reintegration to her mother’s care, if and when the situation allows and that a social follow-up be maintained with the family for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother states that she agrees with the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 6 ] The adolescent admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures.

She states that she

is doing well academically and wants to continue her studies in order to become a lawyer. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Mr. [social worker 1], human relations agent, and read the report the Director filed as proof of the adolescent’s situation. The evidence reveals that X continues to present certain difficulties, but that she has made efforts academically and that her relationship with her mother has improved.

On this point, Mr. [social worker 1] writes in his report on page 5: X seems to realize that she is expected to be responsible for her conduct and to govern herself according to rules, limits and boundaries. She seems to be eager to reconcile with her mother and her family. X has been benefiting from building rapport with her mother and other family members as well as from the trustful relationship with her peers and professionals.

Supported by professionals, mother and daughter may be ready to prepare themselves for reintegration and start living together in the near future. [ 8 ] All parties agree that the family’s situation is fragile, but that with support, X can progressively reintegrate her mother’s home. The mother has made it very clear that she expects X to follow the house rules.

The mother is aware of her parental responsibilities towards her three years old son, Y, and therefore wants the family environment to be safe and free of any violence. [ 9 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the adolescent’s best interest to be maintained in a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months with gradual reintegration to her mother’s care when the situation allows.

An intensive social follow-up will be necessary in the present case in order to provide support to the family during the reintegration of the adolescent to her mother’s care. [ 10 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the adolescent are still compromised. [ 11 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 13 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the adolescent, X; [ 14 ] REVISES the order rendered January 22, 2009; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, X, be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months, with gradual reintegration into her mother’s care, when the situation allows; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the mother and the adolescent participate in the A program in order to facilitate the adolescent’s reintegration; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and her siblings be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, taking into consideration the best interest of the adolescent; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive all health care require by her situation and more particularly an individual psychotherapy, if the adolescent agrees and that the adolescent follow the recommendations of the therapist; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescent agrees to follow a psychotherapy; [ 21 ] ORDERS the mother to fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and meet with the youth workers as requested and to advise them of any changes in her situation; [ 22 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and her family for a period of 18 months; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgement by any peace officer.

Signed May 7, 2010 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Camille Champeval (Counsel for the D.Y.P.)

Me Carole De Lagrave (Counsel for the adolescent) Date of hearing : May 4, 2010