2014 QCCQ 12703, 2014 QCCQ 12703

Protection de la jeunesse — 141784 2014 QCCQ 12703 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004564-137 DATE: April 23, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 1998 Adolescent DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED [1] JUDGMENT AS TO COMPROMISSION ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revision of a Court decision rendered on December 10, 2013, concerning X, born on […], 1998. [ 2 ] The said judgment determines that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger as she displays serious behavioural disturbances.

The Court orders the application of various protective measures for one year, with the adolescent remaining in her maternal environment. [ 3 ] The motion for revision states that the measures have little impact on the adolescent's behavioural issues, as she continues to be oppositional and reject her mother's authority. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that the adolescent puts herself in increasingly dangerous situations, putting her security at risk and justifying a period of rehabilitation in a reception center.

Consequently, the Director recommends the pursuit of protective measures for one year, including the adolescent's placement in a reception center for three months. [ 4 ] The Court proceeds in the absence of the father. The mother testifies to the effect that the father shares her position, and produces a letter to the effect that he wishes the return of his daughter to her maternal environment. [ 5 ] The parties consign their admissions to the Court file. The mother and the adolescent share the same position, acquiescing to

the measures sought, save the pursuit of the adolescent's placement in a reception center. [ 6 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 7 ] Within the order maintaining the adolescent in her maternal environment with the application of protective measures, the Director offers various services to accompany and aid the family, more specifically through an educator of the [center A]. [ 8 ] In place since the fall of 2013, the [center A] services seek to help the mother develop and adapt her parenting skills to her daughter's needs, as well as offering the adolescent anger management strategies. [ 9 ] The adolescent cooperates with the intervention, but accepts little responsibility and refers the blame for her problems on her mother.

The mother cooperates with the intervention, especially as to the establishment and respect of rules of conduct. [ 10 ] Despite the efforts and measures put in place, the mother/daughter relationship continues to be fraught with conflict and disagreement, situation that is ongoing for the last few years. [ 11 ] An outstanding issue of contention is X's frequentations, particularly her relationship with her boyfriend, Y. The mother voices her reservations as to this relationship, which provokes reactions from the adolescent, conflicts and repeated threats of running away.

X rejects all information from her mother, and the caseworkers, as to the inappropriate nature of this relationship. [ 12 ] The evidence demonstrates that Y is on the periphery of street gang activity. Both his brothers are known members of [Town A] street gangs. [ 13 ] On March 24, 2014, X runs away from school after telling her mother she is staying at a friend's house in [Town A] for a few days. With Y knowledge and help, she undertakes a trip to [Town B], in order to meet with him and his mother.

Y makes the arrangements for her transport with adults unknown to the adolescent. [ 14 ] The next day, the adolescent returns home under police supervision, after being found at Y's home. Immediate protective measures are put in place, entrusting the adolescent to a reception center. On March 27 th , the Court renders an order confirming the placement on a provisional basis. [ 15 ] In this milieu, the adolescent respects the structure and begins developing a healthy relationship with her mother. She accepts to meet with a worker with the A program, in order to learn about street gang behaviours.

She names that her cooperation stems from her desire to return home after the provisional period of placement. [ 16 ] The mother considers that her daughter's placement provokes her receptivity to the intervention and of her authority. She states having made a determined decision not to accept the continuation of her daughter's relationship with Y, being now convinced of the dangers inherent.

In fact, the mother's position is conditional on her daughter's promise to cease this relationship. [ 17 ] X testifies to recognizing the potential dangers of her impulsive trip to [Town B] and that she understands the consequences of this impulsive decision. She states that her period of placement acts as a ''lightning bolt'', spurring her understanding of the necessity to adopt better behaviours and work with her mother towards a harmonious and functional relationship.

She presents a coherent plan of action, to include finding employment, participating in an activity, working on anger management and continuing to receive support from A Program . [ 18 ] As to her relationship with Y, the adolescent offers a nuanced position. She states suspending this relationship at her mother's bequest, as this condition underpins her mother's consent to her returning home.

She further testifies to recognizing the negative elements of this relationship, particularly of the violent and denigrating attitudes of her boyfriend towards her. [ 19 ] Notwithstanding, the evidence demonstrates that the adolescent maintains frequent telephone contact with Y at the reception center. She continues to care for him and hopes to eventually reprise their relationship and this, even though he now lives in [Town B]. [ 20 ] The adolescent's behaviours suffer from her family environment being chronically inconsistent in the application of rules and consequences.

As such, she fails to internalize concepts permitting healthy and pro-social choices, and rejects parental structure in favour of her own determined needs. This situation intensifies with time, culminating in the recent incident, which demonstrates X's deficient decision making skills and furthermore, an impulsivity which puts her in high-risk situations. [ 21 ] X is intelligent and well spoken. She benefits from the pro-social values instilled by her family, who show implication to ensuring her well-being.

These elements favour the success of X's reintegration in her maternal environment, should she in fact be sincere in her determination to move forward in addressing the various issues endangering her security and her development. [ 22 ] To this, the mother convinces the Court that she now understands the requirement to offer a constant structure to her daughter and apply coherent consequences. [ 23 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court determines that it is possible to return X home, with a framework of specific measures destined to support the family.

Considering that the history of the intervention demonstrates that both X and her mother can lack in resolve, the Court considers that an interim period of measures is appropriate to verify the long-term viability of this solution. [ 24 ] Additionally, the Court invites the parties to make representations on the possibility of prohibiting the adolescent from contacting Y. The mother and the Director agree with this measure.

The adolescent testifies to her disagreement, citing being able to deal with the situation and wanting to keep Y as a friend and confidante. [ 25 ] The evidence establishes that Y is a noxious element in the adolescent's life, as well as a significant point of contention affecting the mother/daughter relationship. His active participation in the adolescent's running away from home is the most probing

example of his inappropriate behaviours in this context. Furthermore, the mother is clearly in disagreement with the pursuit of contacts, having made the cessation of the relationship a condition of her daughter's return home. [ 26 ] To maintain this relationship, even in its seemingly reduced form, is to permit an impediment not only to the measures put in place to end the situation of endangerment, but possibly to the successful reintegration of the adolescent in her home environment.

The adolescent lacks the objectivity and maturity necessary to evaluate her best interests, and this, even before the plenitude of efforts and information brought forth in relation to Y.

Consequently, the Court considers it in the adolescent's best interests to shield her from this person. [ 27 ] For these reasons, the Court: [ 28 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 30 ] AS INTERIM MEASURES: [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to her mother; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide, aid, counseling or assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents actively participate in the application of the measures; [ 34 ] PROHIBITS the adolescent from coming in contact with Y, this to include all forms of communication, including Facebook, phone, text, twitter; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the services of an educator be offered adolescent and her family; [ 36 ] TAKES ACT that the adolescent agrees to receive the services of Mobilis; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection, the mother and the adolescent determine a contract of house rules within the next seven days and produce a signed copy of said contract in the Court file; [ 38 ] FIXES the hearing on the final measures on the motion for revision of a Court decision on August 4, 2014 for a period of 30 minutes. [ 39 ] 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 Stéphanie Castagnier Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: April 23, 2013