2013 QCCQ 11471, 2013 QCCQ 11471

Protection de la jeunesse — 133711 2013 QCCQ 11471 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No.: 640-41-001579-132 DATE: July 18, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 1996 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A of Health and Social Services of A , Quebec, District A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City A , Quebec, District A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in City A , Quebec, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 91 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. , c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the A of Health and Social Services of A asked that the security and development of X , born on [...] , 1996, be declared in danger. The alleged reasons were neglect (

section 38 (b) (1) (i)), psychological ill-treatment (

section 38 (c) ) and serious behavioural disturbance (

section 38 (f) ) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The parents and the youth were present at the hearing. Me Claude Beaudet and Me Yan Massé represented them. Me Gabriel Gaudreault represented the applicant. [ 3 ] The evidence of the compromising state of the youth was constituted of admissions made by the parents and the youth.

They challenged the measures; the youth would like to remain with her parents on specific conditions and the parents also wish that the youth stay with them. [ 4 ] Upon analysis of this evidence, it is proven that the father displays alcohol related problems and that the youth also consumes abusively alcohol and drugs. She also has aggressive behaviour. [ 5 ] Last March 2, she was assaulted and threatened by her boyfriend. On the same day, the police had to intervene with the youth while she was intoxicated.

On March 4, they had to intervene again and to detain her because of her aggressive behaviour at home. [ 6 ] On April 2, 2013, the police intervened again because the youth got into a fight with her sister. Then, she was placed in a A home for the night. On April 3, the father related that he was kicking her out of his house. He then disclosed that she broke many windows at home.

He agreed with her placement at the reception centre. [ 7 ] On April 4, the mother and the youth signed voluntary measures, but the father did not come back at the office to sign the measures. [ 8 ] Consequently on April 8, the youth was entrusted to the B group home. Since, she does not collaborate and regularly displays aggressive behaviour. On April 19, the group home staff had to intervene with the youth because she was displaying aggressive behaviour.

She was then transferred to the rehabilitation centre in City B . [ 9 ] Considering all those facts, the Court declares the security and development of the youth in danger. [ 10 ] The evidence on the applicable measures shows the necessity to order her placement in a structured setting, offering specialised re-education services.

[ 11 ] The psychologist who met the youth on June 2 made a report stating that, with the description given by the staff members of the reception center and her history, she has serious mental health problems. The psychologist said: « The degree of disengagement, isolation, anger and unusual behaviour makes it very difficult to reach X. » He recommends a psychiatric evaluation and treatment. [ 12 ] In the social report filed, the social worker reports that the parents are in denial.

They believe that there is nothing wrong with their daughter, even if the educator from the group home states that she is at risk and put the other clients at risk because of her violent behaviour. The youth witnessed lots of domestic violence, drinking and parties at home, and all that has an impact on her. The parents fail to provide her a stable and secure home. [ 13 ] Even if the parents do not believe in the re-education services, the youth's situation proved she needs them at least until the end of December 2013.

The parents are not in a position to rapidly change their way of life and to work on their problems. [ 14 ] The youth needs services urgently because of her distress.

The duration of the placement depends of the youth and the parents' motivation and determination to avail themselves of all the services they will be offered. [ 15 ] CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are in danger; [ 17 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a reception centre up to the end of December 2013; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the youth be assess by a psychiatrist and a psychologist as soon as possible and receive a follow-up as required for the duration of the present judgment; [ 19 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and her parents until the youth's majority; [ 20 ] ORDERS the father to participate to a detoxification therapy; [ 21 ] ORDERS the parents to report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply to put an end to the situation of compromission; [ 22 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the visit rights and access of the youth with her parents; [ 23 ] ORDERS the youth to attend a therapy for alcohol and drugs addiction; [ 24 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate to the execution of the present Court order; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault, attorney for the applicant Me Claude Beaudet, attorney for the parents Me Yan Massé, attorney for the youth Date of hearing: June 13, 2013