2016 QCCQ 9528, 2016 QCCQ 9528

Protection de la jeunesse — 16477 2016 QCCQ 9528 COUR OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 505-41-007672-142 DATE : February 2, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE JUDGE FRANCINE GENDRON ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Petitioner -et- X , born on […], 1999 Child-Respondent -et- A , Mother-Respondent -et- B , Father-Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Article 95 (2) of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .) [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking that the order in force since August 11, 2015, in the situation of the adolescent X, be extended. [ 2 ] At that date, the Court entrusted the adolescent to her parents with various measures rendered in order to ensure that she receive the health services required by her situation. [ 3 ] X remains fragile in regards to her mental health due to her various diagnoses (attention deficit disorder, severe anxiety, attachment disorder, developing borderline personality disorder, oppositional disorder and eating disorder) as well as episodes during which she feels she loses touch with reality. [ 4 ] The Director alleges mainly that X’s situation is evolving positively in her parents care, that everyone collaborates well to the different services already in place and that the pursuit of the social follow-up is necessary in order to support the family in the consolidation of the progress made to date. [ 5 ] The Director initially recommends that the adolescent remain at her parents’ home with social follow-up until her majority, but agrees to the parents’ proposal of a six month measure. [ 6 ] The parents admit the allegations in the motion and consent to the measures sought by the Director.

They mention the desire to close the file at the term of the present order should the situation remain positive. [ 7 ] The adolescent admits the allegations in the motion and agrees to the measures sought. [ 8 ] The reports submitted by the petitioner are filed as proof and testimony of their author.

Evolution of the situation [ 9 ] During the last summer, X completed the Douglas day program where she worked mainly on her eating disorder issues. [ 10 ] Since then, she has maintained regular appointments with her psychiatrist, Dr. Grenier, who also organizes weekly weigh-ins for X with a nurse at the hospital. Her parents report that she is not always at her healthy weight due to anxiety, despite her efforts to eat her meals. [ 11 ] Over time, X has slowly gained back her parents' trust by having less oppositional behaviour and by respecting the home rules.

The relationship with her mother still has ups and downs but both of them are working on it. [ 12 ] Most important, the adolescent speaks about different issues with her mother and confides in her about almost everything. The mother continues to offer emotional and psychological support to her daughter. [ 13 ] The relationship with her father has also improved since X is more respectful when she talks to him. They have become closer to each other. [ 14 ] X is being home schooled and takes her studies seriously.

At the same time, she has started work as a model. [ 15 ] The one dark cloud is an episode last fall during which she put herself in danger by accepting to follow some men to their apartment at night. At the time, she was accompanied by a girlfriend and was highly intoxicated with alcohol. One of the men abused of her sexually. [ 16 ] The police were informed of the situation and X filed a complaint against the abuser. The mother accompanied her to the hospital for the sexual assault evidence kit.

An investigation is in progress. [ 17 ] The proof reveals that the parents continue to offer their support to X and are able to put in place the safety measures required to protect their daughter when necessary. [ 18 ] However, taking into consideration the recent events of sexual abuse as well as Dr. Grenier's upcoming retirement, the Court concludes, as do the parties, that the continuation of the youth protection services are necessary in order to support the family.

Although positive progress has been made, it has to be consolidated and maintained for the following months. [ 19 ] After receiving the admissions and considering the reports filed, the testimony heard as well as the adolescent’s best interest, the Court finds that the situation adduced in evidence gives rise to protective measures.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the present Motion; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent X are still in danger; [ 22 ] EXTENDS the Court order rendered on August 11th, 2015 in the present file; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain with her family; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered, particularly in the intervention plan; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive certain health care and health services, namely a pedopsychiatric follow-up and services pertaining to her condition for as long as deemed necessary; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X to the Director of Youth Protection of A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE, for six months. __________________________________ FRANCINE GENDRON , J.C.Q.

Me Caterine Caron Avocate de la D.P.J. Me Hélène Robitaille Avocate de l'enfant

Me Justine Samoisette-Fournier Avocate des parents Date d’audience : 2 février 2016