2012 QCCQ 11355, 2012 QCCQ 11355

Protection de la jeunesse — 123759 2012 QCCQ 11355 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004142-124 760-41-004143-122 DATE: May 9, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 1998 Y , born on […], 1998 Youths DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents of the children ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________ 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 Court is seized of motions for protection concerning the siblings X and Y, both born on […], 1998. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection alleges that the security and the development of the adolescents are in danger in reason of serious behavioral difficulties and negligence on an educational plan (failure to provide adequate supervision), as is more amply detailed in paragraph 3 of the respective motions. [ 3 ] As well as various measures of aid and support, the Director initially requests that the adolescents remain in their family environments, Y with her mother and X with her father.

Documentary evidence is produced, including the reports on the social situation of the adolescents, the whole by consent in lieu of testimony of their author. [ 4 ] The admissions of the parties as to the motion are noted in the Court record and they indicate their assent as to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 5 ] The parents are separated since 2002. Although the custody of the adolescents vacillates between them, X primarily resides with her mother since August 2010, and Y since June 2011. They visit their father on a regular basis. [ 6 ] The Director evaluates the family in October 2011.

The evaluation reveals that the siblings are oppositional, disrespectful to authority and verbally and physically aggressive. These behaviors are exhibited at home as well as in their school setting. [ 7 ] Both siblings attend High School A. Numerous incidents of unjustified absences, lack of respect for authority and conflicts with other students, are noted.

X signs a behavior contract at the beginning of the school year, with little effect. [ 8 ] Both parents are overwhelmed by the situation and the degeneration of the family dynamic. [ 9 ] Parental authority is generally disregarded and the parents are regularly the object of derision and vulgarity. Violent conflicts regularly arise between the siblings, including punching, yelling, and throwing of objects. [ 10 ] The mother's parenting is inconsistent, resulting in her being easily manipulated by her daughters.

She is unable to confront her daughter's refusals to attend school nor ensure their compliance to basic rules of acceptable conduct. She minimizes the extent and importance of her daughter's behaviors. [ 11 ] The mother works and is completing nursing studies. The siblings are unsupervised until late in the evening and the mother is generally unaware of their activities. Although she asks that they return home after school to eat supper and do homework, she regularly has to pick them up at the skate park or elsewhere.

She is unaware of their activities during this time. [ 12 ] The father also admits that his daughters are out of control and violent. [ 13 ] Over the past few years, the parents make numerous requests for the placement of their children in a reception center, which are never followed through on. On October 31, 2011, the adolescents are placed in a reception center in virtue of a provisional agreement. The mother rescinds her agreement a week later stating that her daughter's have ''learnt their lesson''.

The situation remains unchanged. [ 14 ] On February 6, 2012, the Court declares the security and the development of the adolescents compromised in reason of serious behavioral disturbances and negligence on an educational plan. An interim order intervenes as to the measures, following an agreement between the parties to the effect that Y remain with her mother, while X resides with her father. The parties are confident that separating the siblings in two different homes and schools will calm their behaviors and promote the intervention.

Other measures intervene, including the establishment of a contract of house rules, weekly reports to the Director and anger management counseling. [ 15 ] Y's performance at school and at home improves significantly. She is more engaged and receptive to intervention. Some behavior difficulties and suspensions are still noted, but the frequency and severity are reduced. [ 16 ] As for X, little changes are afforded as a result of her transfer to her father's. She continues to miss school, is oppositional, and refuses to respect the house rules. She balks at the intervention.

On May 15 th , the Court revises the interim order and entrusts her to a reception center. [ 17 ] After an initial reaction, X integrates positively in the reception center. In this structured environment, she is polite, respectful and able to follow rules. She participates in A therapy and learns how to recognize her triggers and better control her anger. She is reintegrated in High School A and is able to function adequately.

[ 18 ] Before the reduction of her daughter's problematic behaviors, the mother is more able to assert her authority. [ 19 ] The Court is convinced that the parties have progressed in their appreciation of the necessity of constructing and maintaining a harmonious environment. The parents, and particularly the mother, must consistently and coherently apply structure and consequences.

The youths must continue to be tooled in the appropriate expression of their anger and conflict resolution. [ 20 ] The situation remains fragile and utmost prudence is dictated to ensure that the recent positive changes are maintained. Notwithstanding, the Court is convinced that the application of the measures can be effectuated within the family environment.

The parties continued cooperation as to the intervention is essential to this end. [ 21 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescents are in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescents be entrusted to their mother; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescents and their parents undertake an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security or development is in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the adolescents to communicate directly with the social worker, at least once every two weeks; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the services of an educator be put in place, said services to include anger management therapy; [ 28 ] TAKES ACT that the parties agrees to cooperate with anger management therapy outside of services of the educator, if such is recommended; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the adolescents frequent school assiduously and that all absences be motivated to the school, as well as the social worker; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the house rules agreement be re-established within 3 weeks of the date of the present decision, said rules to be determined in writing between the mother and the Director; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the adolescents participate in structured activities during the summer period; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the adolescents and their family for a period of nine (9) months; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescents to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Karine Nantais Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: May 9, 2012