2011 QCCQ 14797, 2011 QCCQ 14797

Protection de la jeunesse — 115289 2011 QCCQ 14797 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth chamber No: 615-41-001310-092 DATE: September 16, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 1995 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , technician in social work, exercising her profession at the Centre jeunesse A, having a place of business at […], in city A, district A, Quebec […] Petitioner -and- A , domiciled and residing at […], in city B, district A, Quebec […] Mother -and- B , domiciled and residing at […], in city B, district A, Quebec […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the review and extension of the decision rendered on April 19, 2011, concerning X, male teenager born on […], 1995. [ 2 ] The parents and the teenager are present, but only the teenager is represented.

II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The Director recommends that the teenager be fostered in a rehabilitation centre, more specifically in a group home, until he reaches the age of majority. [ 4 ] The youth contests the recommendation and his father adopts the same position. As for the mother, she has nothing to say.

III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 5 ] On March 6, 2009, the Court orders the foster care of the child, who just turned 14 years of age, in a rehabilitation centre for a period of 24 months, followed by a foster care in a foster family, until the age of majority. [ 6 ] On April 19, 2011, the Court orders the extension of the foster care measure in a rehabilitation centre, for a period of 4 months. [ 7 ] It is important to note that the extension granted on April 19, 2011, is linked, as can be understood from the decision, to four elements tendered in evidence: - a deterioration of the child's situation in the weeks preceding the hearing;

- the incapacity of the services to identify a suitable foster family; - the objectives of a structured environment, have not been sufficiently completed; [ 8 ] Today, the evidence tendered with the testimonies of the social worker, the father, the mother and the youth establishes the following: - the possibility that he remains in a group home until he reaches the age of majority, renders the teenager anxious and stresses him; - he expresses his wish and his right to benefit from a less structure environment, considering the progress he has made since two years, as for his behaviour; - the social worker states that they have not succeeded in identifying an appropriate foster family, considering the needs and characteristics of the teenager; - the program in force at the group home has been modified, in order to accommodate the youth, considering his needs differ from the other youths; - the parents, as the case since the beginning, do not collaborate and the father is of the opinion that the services rendered to his child, since the beginning, have nothing to do with the progress accomplished! - the parents are not demanding that their son be reintegrated with them and the teenager is not demanding to reintegrate the family environment; - an incident of assault took place between the teenager and an educator, but contrary to similar incidents in the past, the youth fully recognized his inappropriate behaviour, showed remorse and discussed the incident; - there is no evidence relative to alcohol or drugs abuse, no evidence relative to unauthorized absences.

The teenager is working and will start school in a few days in secondary 4. His visits in his family have been positive. [ 9 ] The evidence tendered convinces the Court that the youth has made sufficient progress to demand a change of structure. Furthermore, the adopted program constitutes a serious indication that warrants a less structure environment. [ 10 ] The testimony of the social worker outlines the difficulties in finding a suitable or the most appropriate foster family and further establishes that the youth is not the only one in that situation.

Consequently, the best solution is for the youth to remain in the group home, until he reaches the age of majority. This would mean a total foster care measure in a rehabilitation centre for a period of nearly four years. [ 11 ] The evidence tendered, including the review report by the Director of Youth Protection, does not convince the Court. [ 12 ] Evidently, there is always a risk when a change of structure occurs and more so when the structure proposed involves more freedom. That being said, the risk cannot constitute an obstacle and has to be managed, by close monitoring.

The youth is still fragile but again, he has, in the last two years, accomplished significant progress to warrant a change of environment. [ 13 ] The search for a suitable if not the most appropriate foster family must continue and bring about positive results.

A delay of 60 days should suffice. [ 14 ] Meanwhile and afterwards, the teenager will have to continue his follow-up with the mental health department, attend school on a regular basis and follow internal rules at the group home. [ 15 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the demand; [ 17 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the teenager, in danger; [ 18 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision rendered on April 19, 2011; [ 19 ] ORDRES the following measures in accordance with

section 91 of the Law:

a) the foster care of the teenager in a rehabilitation centre, for a period of sixty (60) days, starting on August 30, 2011;

b) the foster care of the child in a foster family, starting on November 1, 2011, until he reaches the age of majority;

c) that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents and the teenager, during the foster care measure;

d) that the follow-up offered by the mental health department continues, as long as necessary;

e) that the teenager participates and collaborates with the measures proposed to correct the situation, namely by attending school on a regular basis, attending his mental health follow-up on a regular basis, follow the rules set forward by the foster parents as for curfews, activities, outings and internal rules of the house;

[ 20 ] AUTHORIZES that the personal relations between the teenager and his parents be maintained; [ 21 ] ORDERS that access and visitations rights between the child and his parents be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 22 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the foster care measures if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the teenager, to the Director of Youth Protection, for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q.

M e Claude Cossette Lawyer for the teenager M e Annie Gaouette Lawyer for the petitioner Date of hearing: August 30, 2011