2014 QCCQ 7985, 2014 QCCQ 7985

Protection de la jeunesse — 14821 2014 QCCQ 7985 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] « YOUTH DIVISION »

N° : 540-41-003957-148 DATE : February 25 ft , 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOISE GARNEAU-FOURNIER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X Born [ … ] 1999 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion for protection in conformity with the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q., c. P-34.1 ) asking to declare that the security or the development of the adolescent X are in danger because of her serious behavourial disturbances in the meaning of

Section 38

f) of the Act and because she is in a situation in which her parents do not met her basic needs in failing to provide her the appropriate supervision or support or failing to take the necessary steps to provide X with schooling in the meaning of the

Section 38 b) 1) iii) of the Act. [ 2 ] All of the formalities required by law having been complied with, the Court proceed with the hearing pursuant to

section 77 of the Act. After considering the evidence adduced, the Court rendered an oral judgment without rising, of which these presents constituted the written version, with reasons, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Act. [ 3 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the Director's attorney asked to declare that the security and development of X be compromised for the same reasons and that she be entrusted to a reception center for the next period of six (6) months, with others measures listed in the Court report prepared by Mrs [Social Worker 1], delegate of the Youth Protection, dated February 14 th , 2014, for a period of one (1) year. [ 4 ] In support of the recommendations, the Director's attorney filed several reports and documents and Mrs A testifies to explain in more details some of her conclusions. [ 5 ] The parents, Mr A and Mrs B testify to explain in more details their position.

Essentially, they wished to have X back home, giving her the opportunity to demonstrate that she is able to respect their authority and the rules. [ 6 ] As to X, duly represented by an attorney, she testifies and admits some of her difficulties. She also wishes to go back home. Given the evidence, X's attorney recognizes that the security or the development of her client is in danger on both grounds allegued by the Director. However, she asked that provisional measures be rendered to evaluate if it is possible for X to remain with her family and if

her parents are able to set rules and that these rules been respected by her client. [ 7 ] The Court recalls that when the Director of Youth Protection received a signalement on November 2013, the evaluation of the reports confirmed that X shows behavioural disturbances as to using drugs on a regular basis in the last year in a half, that she repeatedly runs away for many days, that she was maintaining relationship with not very recomandeable adults and was frequently absent from school for no particular reasons. On November 21 st , she was arrested by the police while driving a stolen car.

At that time, and more specifically, on November 22 nd 2013, a provisional agreement was signed by all the parties where X was entrusted to a reception centre for a period of thirty (30) days. The Court noticed that there were also a situation of neglect on educational terms because the parents did not implement a structure, respect, discipline, not sharing the same opinion on education and giving their daughter everything she wanted. At the end of this thirty (30) days placement, X reintegrates her parent's home. It was observed that she was going well and complied with all the rules set in the reception centre.

She also agrees to respect rules determined by Mrs [Social Worker 1] with the adolescent and her mother. In fact, this was confirmed by Mrs A and the adolescent at the hearing even the mother denies it. [ 8 ] On January, 7 th 2014, Mrs A called the mother to ask how X had been doing in the last couple of weeks. Mrs B said that it was not going as well as expected (so so). However, the youth did not go to school, ran away for a few days and returned home on January, 13 th .

She ran away again on January 15 th but it was on January 21 st , that Mrs A were informed by a third party that X had run away a couple of weeks ago and was no longer attending school. At that time, the mother did not want that the police be contacted but finally, both parents decided to report their daughter on January 21 st and X has been found by the police in her boyfriend room (Mr.

C) on January 27 th . On January 31 st , 2014, the Honourable Pierre Hamel ordered provisional compulsory placement of X in a reception center until February 25 th . Since her last placement, X complies with all the rules and respects the structure put into place just as she did the first time she was placed. She also started school again on February 11. As mentioned in the Court report, her educator, Mrs [Social Worker 2], describes her as being quiet and conforming to the structure. She is sensitive about the issue with her father and she does not want to talk openly about her relationship with Justin.

According to Mrs [Social Worker 2], X minimizes the danger of having risky acquaintances and she is not aware of where it could take her. X needs to work on her transparency and she tends to avoid what is difficult to her. [ 9 ] Moveover, X visits home two times. The first on the week-end of February 8 th , where everything went well. The second visit took place last week end. On the sunday night, X was supposed to go back to the reception centre at 8:00 PM, but she was not there. The educator calls the mother who does not know where X was.

The evidence revealed that the mother left X at 4:30 PM at Tim Horton's where she was supposed to met with "D". The mother confirmed that she does not know who is D, and left her daughter there. As to the father, even he testifies that he has now more availability because he changed his work schedule, and was at home on that sunday, until 7:00/7:30 PM, was visiting his mother at that time and did not know that X was left by the mother at Tim Horton's.

This situation confirmed that the parents are still unable to set clear and coherent rules for their daughter who is only forteen (14) years old and who have some bad acquaintances in the last months where she put herself in danger. [ 10 ] Given the fact that on one part, the parents need support and tools in order to manage X's behaviours and having difficulties to chose the right intervention and attitude, the mother wanting to keep her relationship with her daughter at any price, minimizing X's behaviours and on the other part, the fact that it will take more than 60 days for X to realise the consequences of her behaviours and be minimaly able to protect herself and learns that adults, especially her parents are there to guide her and she has to respect their authority, for all those reasons, the Court thinks that the measures proposed by the Director's delegate are perfectly justified and in the best interest of X. [ 11 ] Finally, the Court will order that X be placed in a reception centre for a period of six (6) months, informing the parents that as it is provided in

Section 62 of the Act, the Director of Youth Protection may authorize the adolescent to stay with her parents for extended periods during the last sixty (60) days of the period of compulsory foster care, if the situation allows it. Also, all the other measures proposed are indicated, as to X's return to her parents is the plan project. [ 12 ] THEREFORE, AND FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] DECLARES the security and the development of X deemed compromised in the meaning of

Section 38

f) and b) 1) iii) of the Act; [ 14 ] ORDERS that X remained entrusted to a reception centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection of CENTRE DE JEUNESSE A , for the next period of six (6) months;

[ 15 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling and assistance to the adolescent and her parents for the next period of one (1) year; [ 16 ] ORDERS X to attend school on a regular basis; [ 17 ] ORDERS X and her parents to collaborate with the social follow-up and the parents to report periodically to the delegate the measures taken to put an end to the situation of compromission; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and her parents be determined with the consent of the delegate, the adolescent and her parents as to the frequency and modalities, if the contacts are in the best interest of X and if her behaviours allows it; [ 19 ] FORBIDS any kind of contacts between X and Mr C for the next period of one (1) year; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X to the Director of Youth Protection A, Centre de protection de l'enfance et de la jeunesse, who shall than see that the measures are carried out; [ 21 ] ORDERS enforcement of this order by any peace officer, if need be. __________________________________ FRANÇOISE GARNEAU-FOURNIER J.C.Q.

Date d'audience: 25 février 2014 Me Anne-Rachel LAROSE Director's attorney Me Martine NOLIN Adolescent's attorney