2016 QCCQ 9526, 2016 QCCQ 9526

Protection de la jeunesse — 16475 2016 QCCQ 9526 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 505-41-007645-148 DATE : February 2, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONORABLE 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 […], 2000 Child-Respondent -et- A , Mother-Respondent -et- B , Father-Respondent -et- C Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Article 95 (1) & (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 the review and extension of the order rendered on November 28, 2014 concerning the adolescent X presently 15 years of age. [ 2 ] As a corrective measure, the Court entrusted the adolescent in a foster home for one year and established measures in order to resume contacts with the maternal grand-mother.

The latter is recognized as parent according to the law since she is the legal guardian of her grand-daughter and exercises parental authority for her since she is a young child. [ 3 ] The adolescent has had to move many times since the last judgment because of her difficult behaviour.

Several provisional measures for placement were rendered in order to answer her needs. [ 4 ] Thus, since August 3, 2015 X is successively entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, her grand-mother, back to a rehabilitation centre for 30 days before being once again entrusted to her grand-mother on November 2, 2015. [ 5 ] At the hearing, the Director recommends that the adolescent be maintained in her present living environment with social follow-up for one year. [ 6 ] The parents are absent although duly notified. [ 7 ] The maternal grand-mother admits the allegations in the motion and consents to the measures sought. [ 8 ] The adolescent admits the majority of the allegations in the motion and consents to the measures sought.

[ 9 ] The reports written by the petitioner are filed as proof and testimony of their author. Evolution of the situation [ 10 ] Since the last order, X has escalated to behaviours that are potentially highly damaging to her development and security and has needed to be stopped in order to contain them. [ 11 ] At the foster home, she befriended the older adolescents and shared their negative ways, namely the use of drugs and refusal to inform of her whereabouts and activities.

This only added to her oppositional behaviour of lying, arguing, being defiant and aggressive when denied her own way. [ 12 ] Moreover, X remained disruptive at school, even within a highly structured program, and breached the law on two known occasions by stealing another student's Ipod and engaging in a physical altercation with another adolescent. [ 13 ] In short, the adolescent fails to see the dangers associated with her ways and needs to be protected from further damaging behaviour. [ 14 ] It is in this context that X is entrusted a first time in a rehabilitation centre and integrated a group home last summer.

Although the adolescent continued to show no motivation in addressing her difficulties, the Director decided to support her wish of returning with her grandmother. [ 15 ] After a month, the situation deteriorated again, with X resuming to her previous ways. In mid-October, an argument between her and the grand-mother escalated to the point of requiring police intervention after which the adolescent refused to remain in her care. [ 16 ] During her placement, she talked with her father, pressing that she live with him.

With her father's reluctant response, X felt left out and abandoned, such as when she was a young child. [ 17 ] Her grand-mother was sensitive to her distress and comforted her, claiming she was still ready to consider her return if she made the proper reflection. [ 18 ] On November 2nd, the adolescent and her grand-mother worked out an agreement to try again with the support of an educator as well as mental health services. The Court agreed with this project. [ 19 ] Since then, although X makes efforts, she still continues to be difficult.

The educator has intervened on numerous occasions to offer guidance and support yet she remains in denial about her different life struggles.

The grand-mother has reported essentially the following behaviour and issues : ➢ Hanging out with older marginal peers and not respecting the curfew; ➢ Gets oppositional and argumentative when her requests are denied; ➢ Wears clothing that can be provocative; ➢ Has not completed her community service concerning the stolen IPod; ➢ Suspended from school for being high on drugs. [ 20 ] Despite all the services in place, as well as the grand-mother’s unconditional commitment towards her, X does not mobilise herself and continues to put her security and development in peril. [ 21 ] The Director considered recommending a longer placement in a rehabilitation centre in order to put an end to her behaviour, but still believes it possible that improvement can be achieved at home where the family ties are preserved. [ 22 ] The adolescent must understand that the situation is a fragile one.

Should she fail to accept the services which are offered and end the behaviours which put her greatly at risk, another venue will need to be considered in order to protect her. [ 23 ] Considering the mother’s important mental health issues, the difficulties encountered by X when she was under her care as well as her persistent behavioural disturbances, the Court agrees with the Director and the grand-mother that the adolescent benefit from a mental health assessment as soon as possible, to which she agrees. [ 24 ] It should be noted that the adolescent has had no contact with her mother since the last measures and that the relationship with her father has not proven satisfactory. [ 25 ] 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: [ 26 ] GRANTS the present amended motion; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent X are still in danger; [ 28 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on November 28, 2014; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to her grandmother and legal guardian, Ms. C;

[ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be upon agreement between the parties and upon the desire of the youth; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered, more specifically in the intervention plan; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsellling or assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the adolescent benefit from mental health services, namely an assessment at Santé mentale jeunesse as soon as possible; [ 34 ] ENTRUST the situation of the adolescent X to the Director of Youth Protection of A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE, for one year. __________________________________ FRANCINE GENDRON , J.C.Q.

Me Caterine Caron Avocate de la D.P.J. Me Jean-Pierre Gaudreau Avocat de l'enfant Date d’audience : 2 février 2016