2012 QCCQ 8534, 2012 QCCQ 8534

Protection de la jeunesse — 12338 2012 QCCQ 8534 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] JL 4031 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION No: 525-41-013329-032 DATE : January 23 rd , 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF A YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTERS Director and X born on […], 1997 adolescent and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby gives reasons for the decision rendered further to the hearing held on January 23 rd , 2012, as required by

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] The Court is seized of a Motion filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act, by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centers (" the Director" ), to review an order rendered on May 20 th , 2008 by the Honorable Elaine Demers. [ 3 ] More particularly, the Director alleges the following: 3.1 the adolescent integrated a foster family as per the decision of the Court, said placement broke down in December 2009 and the adolescent was placed in a different foster family; 3.2. the adolescent is presenting some behavioural challenges which have led the foster parent to request her removal from her home; 3.3. on or about October 27 th , 2011, the adolescent was placed in a group home under immediate protective measures; 3.4. on or about October 28 th , 2011, the adolescent went for an extended visit to her father's home where she remains to date; 3.5. the father has maintained regular contacts and visits with the child over the years; 3.6. the father and the adolescent wish to be reunited permanently and have stated that they are prepared to work collaboratively with the youth protection worker to do so; 3.7. the father's situation is stable and he appears to have resolved his past substance abuse issues successfully;

3.8. the father has been entrusted with the care of his son, Y, since the summer and said integration has been successful; 3.9. the mother's lifestyle remains very unstable and there have been no contacts between the mother and the adolescent in the last four (4) years; [ 4 ] The Director is recommending that X remain entrusted to her father's care with aid, counsel and assistance and other corrective measures, the whole for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The father, assisted by Me Brunet, makes a general admission of the allegations and consents to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 6 ] X, assisted by Me Morin, makes as well a general admission of the allegations and consents to be entrusted to her father. [ 7 ] The evidence establishes that in August 2008, X integrated a foster family, as per the previous court order.

She remained there and did well until December 2009 when re-placement was needed due to the foster mother struggling with being a full-time foster parent. At that time, the father showed himself to be supportive in helping his daughter get through this difficult transition. [ 8 ] Recently, X's new foster family placement broke down, this time because of the foster mother reacting to certain behavioural issues on X's part. X made it clear that she found this situation extremely difficult to deal with. [ 9 ] Over the years, the father's situation has stabilized.

He has been able to steer away from drugs and criminal activity. He has maintained regular contact and involvement with his daughter and has shown himself to be very collaborative with the DYP. This progress has allowed him to successfully resume the care of his son. [ 10 ] Thus, seeing his daughter distraught over having to again be displaced, the father proposed receiving her. [ 11 ] With DYP approval, X went into her father's care on a trial basis on October 28, 2011. On November 11, 2011, the court officially entrusted X to her father's care until today. [ 12 ] Since then, the situation has gone well.

X is going to school regularly and on time and her homework is done to the school's satisfaction. There appear to be no particular problems with discipline or behaviour. [ 13 ] The mother has continued to have serious personal difficulties. More recently, she went into a residential drug treatment centre in November 2011 which she completed on December 7, 2011. Unfortunately, she would have relapsed and her current whereabouts are unknown. She was nonetheless made aware of, and agrees with, the plan for X to live with her father.

It is under these circumstances and with the consent of all parties that the court proceeded today in the mother's absence. [ 14 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 15 ] GRANTS the Motion for Revision ; and [ 16 ] DECLARES that X's security or development is still compromised; [ 17 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER

SECTION 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES : [ 18 ] ORDERS that X remain entrusted to her father's care; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between X and her mother be determined by the DYP, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the father ensure that X is not exposed to any form of violence or substance abuse; [ 21 ] ORDERS a person working for A Youth and Family Centres to provide aid, counsel and assistance to X and the family; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 23 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 24 ] ALL OF THESE ORDERS will apply for a period of one year;

TOWN A, this 3 rd day of February, 2012 _______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. Me Sym-Anthony Davis Attorney for the Director Me Marc Morin Attorney for X Me Richard Brunet Attorney for the father Date of hearing : CL/nl January 23 rd , 2012