2013 QCCQ 19372, 2013 QCCQ 19372

Protection de la jeunesse — 137885 2013 QCCQ 19372 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004529-130 DATE: September 4, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 1999 Adolescent DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents ______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection concerning X, born on […], 1999. [ 2 ] The motion alleges that the security or the development of the adolescent is in danger in reason of parental neglect on the educational level. The Director recommends that the Court apply protective measures for one year, particularly that the adolescent remain in a reception center for the next six months. [ 3 ] The parties consign their admissions to the Court file and declare being in agreement with the measures.

The mother adds wishing to have more significant contacts with her daughter. [ 4 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 5 ] When the Director of Youth Protection initially evaluates the situation of the adolescent in April 2012, she resides with her mother. The father's contacts are irregular. [ 6 ] The adolescent exhibits behavioural difficulties, and this, at school and home. She faces divergent disciplinary methods in her two family environments, which are even contradictory as to some issues.

The parent's relationship is fragile and subject to conflict, which impedes the establishment of a coherent response to the adolescent's difficulties. [ 7 ] The mother presents a chronic depressive mood, which affect her consistency in regards to her parental role. Few rules are present and discipline is lax. The adolescent's oppositional behaviours overwhelm her mother and squelch her attempts to structure the situation. [ 8 ] The father insists on a strict regimen of rules. When his daughter fails to respect these, he can react strongly and resort to denigration and aggressiveness.

Although these methods are generally ineffectual, the father refuses to question his methods of discipline. [ 9 ] On September 6 th 2012, the parties sign an agreement on voluntary measures, recognizing a situation of neglect on the educational level. Various protective measures are put in place for six months, within the specific goal of the parents setting consistent and coherent boundaries for their daughter, in her home environment. [ 10 ] As of the signature of the agreement, the parents agree to share their daughter's custody one week on two. [ 11 ] The services of an educator are put in place.

The parties elaborate a contract of good family agreement, regarding the house rules and the resolution of conflicts. [ 12 ] The adolescent lacks in transparency and fails to respect the contract. She uses lies and manipulation to satisfy her needs. She continually pushes her parent's limits. Her behavioural issues continue and increase in severity and frequency.

Particularly, the parents note the following: • Opposition to authority; • Drug consumption; • Runs away; • Physical and verbal violence; • Suicidal ideations; • School absenteeism; [ 13 ] On October 30 th , an incident occurs at the father's home, during which the adolescent threatens to hurt herself. The parties agree that the adolescent reside in foster care for a provisional period of one month. During this stay, her behaviour is appropriate. [ 14 ] A psychiatric evaluation reveals an adjustment disorder and disturbed mood due to psychosocial stressors.

Although there is a referral for services with Centre A, the closure of the file results from the family not following through on the scheduled meetings. [ 15 ] Crises continue to occur regularly, some of which require police intervention (conflicts, running away). On these occasions, the parents ask for the immediate placement of their daughter, but retract themselves once calm returns.

Both parents show an irregular cooperation with the intervention of Youth Protection. [ 16 ] On August 1 st 2013, the parents request the immediate removal of their daughter, citing being overwhelmed by her ongoing behavioural issues. Since then, the adolescent remains in provisional placement in a reception center.

[ 17 ] In this milieu, the adolescent functions generally well. Socially, she is polite, although her implication is reserved. She demonstrates no aggressive or impulsive behaviours. With her parents, she continues to use triangulation to achieve gains. [ 18 ] In the structured, stable and coherent environment of the reception center, she functions well, yet shields herself from addressing any sensitive issues.

The severity of the adolescent's behaviours in her home environments being in stark contradiction to those in the reception center setting, reveals that these relate to the family dynamic. [ 19 ] Although the parents share positive values, which they seek to inculcate to their daughter, their contradictory methods result in distress and oppositional behaviours. [ 20 ] The intervention seeks to ensure a secure and structured environment to the adolescent, which presently cannot be offered in her respective home settings.

The goal of the intervention is to return the adolescent home as soon as possible and to do so, the measures offer to aid the parents and the adolescent to establish a consistently harmonious relationship where each role is defined and respected. [ 21 ] After considering the evidence, the Court determines that the security and the development of the adolescent are compromised and that the recommendations forwarded by the Director of Youth Protection are appropriate and in her best interests. [ 22 ] Furthermore, both parents cite difficulties being available for meetings with the Director and to ensuring effective communication with the worker assigned to the file, particularly in reason of their respective work schedule.

They confirm their implication as to their daughter and to the intervention, but jointly ask that the Director consider their professional obligations, inasmuch as this is practicable.

The Court considers that this request is reasonable and in the best interests of the adolescent, justifying a recommendation in this regard. [ 23 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are in danger in reason of a situation of parental neglect on the educational level; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a reception center for a period of 6 months; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be determined upon agreement between the parties; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent takes an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the adolescent and her parents for a period of one year; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the meetings scheduled between the Director of Youth Protection and the parents take in consideration the parent's mutual professional responsibilities; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: 4 septembre 2013