2011 QCCQ 17432, 2011 QCCQ 17432

Protection de la jeunesse — 116719 2011 QCCQ 17432 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001350-104 DATE: October 14, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANTE 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in CITY A APPLICANT and X, born on […], 1994 TEENAGER and A MOTHER and B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is asking, in accordance with

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , [1] to review a decision rendered on April 8, 2011 by the undersigned.

The conclusions of the decision read as such: - GRANTS the motion; - DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 1994, are in danger; - ORDERS the placement of the teenager in a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months starting on February 8, 2011; - RECOMMENDS that the teenager be placed, if the situation allows, in a Inuit rehabilitation centre; - AUTHORISES the gradual reintegration of the teenager, if the circumstances allow to do so, in the last two months; - ORDERS a follow-up of the situation by the Director of Youth Protection for a period of one year; - ORDERS the teenager and her parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection ; - ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide help and counselling to the teenager and her parents; - ORDERS the preparation of a psychological evaluation of the teenager; - ORDERS an assessment of X as to drug and alcohol problems and a follow-up, if necessary, for as long as recommended by the professional; - ORDERS any police force to collaborate in the execution of the Court orders, if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection; - ENTRUSTS the situation of the teenager to the Director of Youth Protection for a purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. [ 2 ] The applicant, considering that it would be necessary for a new order to be rendered, is then presenting the Court with a motion to do so. [ 3 ] The parents and the teenager are present and represented at the hearing.

[ 4 ] Both father and mother agree with the suggested measure, that is, the placement in a Rehabilitation Centre, whereas the teenager, who will reach majority this coming […], is asking to remain in her natural environment in the community of city A [ 5 ] Basically, the reasons supporting the present motion are the same as those leading to the February 8, 2011 decision.

The teenager is showing major behaviour problems, specifically she makes use of alcohol and drugs on a regular basis, her attitude is sometimes suicidal and, on occasions, she becomes violent with those around her. [ 6 ] Although the teenager has recently made significant improvements, nevertheless it seems that the problems are still there and continue to be a concern. [ 7 ] Among the consequences, the mother admits that she feels overwhelmed and not able to cope with the situation. [ 8 ] When faced with the allegations of the motion, she first agreed to say that she was not ready to have her daughter back.

In her testimony though, she takes a different stance and says that she could have her back if she were to behave properly, which seems to have been the case very recently. [ 9 ] Indeed the mother tells that, a few days before appearing in Court, her daughter has behaved in a much more acceptable manner and would not have used any drugs or alcohol. [ 10 ] Then the teenager, based on these recent changes, is asking not to return to the Rehabilitation Centre but to remain in city A.

She says that she is willing to cooperate with and follow all the recommendations of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 11 ] As explained to the parties at the hearing, the Court does not endorse this suggestion considering that the changes made by the teenager have just been newly acquired and that they are still fragile.

It seems preferable, in the circumstances, that she remains in a more structured environment where resource people are available right there and then. [ 12 ] Not to say that the Social Services in city A are not competent to eventually provide proper services to the teenager, but rather that the past events suggest that it would be profitable for her to return to an environment that has already begun a process with her. [ 13 ] In addition, it will allow the mother to be better prepared to have her daughter come home when she returns most probably in the course of this coming winter. [ 14 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 1994, are still endangered; [ 17 ] ORDERS the placement of the teenager in a Rehabilitation Centre for a period ending on […], 2012; [ 18 ] MAINTAINS all the measures ordered in the judgment rendered on April 8, 2011, where applicable; [ 19 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate in the execution of the Court orders, if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the teenager to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyers for the applicant Me Jean-Claude Latraverse Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyers for the teenager Me Michel Solomon Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: September 13, 2011