2017 QCCQ 19983, 2017 QCCQ 19983

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710354 2017 QCCQ 19983 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001850-145 DATE: June 27, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2001 YOUTH ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection submits a motion dated April 21, 2017 , requesting the review of a judgment rendered by Judge Louis Grégoire, J.C.Q., on March 23, 2017 , that declared the security and development of X, 15 years old, still endangered.

The main measure ordered to put an end to the situation that endangers the situation of the youth was a placement in a reception centre until December 31, 2017. [ 2 ] On March 24, 2017, the day after the judgment, the Director came back to court stating that there was no place available in a reception centre for X and asked, as a provisional measure, that she be kept in a foster family. [ 3 ] On the minutes of the hearing, it can be read that: “The Court takes judicial notice that considering there is no room available in rehabilitation center and that it may take a month before there is place available, the youth X will reside in a close monitored foster home waiting the availability in rehabilitation center within the next thirty (30) days” [ 4 ] In his written judgment, the Judge declared: “[6] Evidence doesn’t support the DYP demand.

It is obvious that X needs structures and services, specialized services . She doesn’t attend school, she doesn’t follow any rules, she refuses services, she refuses authority and does what she wants, when she wants. [7] She acts in a way that she jeopardizes seriously her future. She is confused and depressed. She has to see somebody but doesn’t want (sic) at this point in time.

She has no real model and her wish to be entrust (sic) to the care of her recent boyfriend is a way to avoid to face the problems. [8] The Court believe (sic) that she needs a period of re-education to aloud (sic) her to focus on her needs and strengths, she will stay in a structured foster home for the next month, time to find a place for her.” [1] [ 5 ] At that time, the recommendation of the Director of Youth Protection was to place X at her boyfriend’s place. The parents of the boyfriend had recently been accredited as a foster family. We have to emphasize the fact that between October and February, despite

the fact that the Court ordered her placement in a foster family, she was not residing in such a place. This fact was at the knowledge of the youth’s sister, who was the foster family, and of the mother.

During the hearing in March, the Director of Youth Protection contemplated another foster family instead of the one of the boyfriend’s parents. [ 6 ] Given the evidence, the judge decided that a placement in a reception centre was warranted by the facts put in evidence regarding the youth. [ 7 ] X was enrolled in school on March 28, 2017. [ 8 ] On April 28, 2017, Judge Jean-Pierre Gervais dismissed an application for provisional measures seeking X’s placement in a foster family. [ 9 ] At the present hearing, the evidence reveals that the Youth Worker never agreed with the judgment rendered in March by Judge Grégoire. [ 10 ] The consultant, Mrs.

Cathy Carroll, testified that there is a big problem in terms of resource management between the healing services and the Director of Youth Protection. [ 11 ]

Section 62 of the Youth Protection Act provides on its second paragraph that: “Every institution operating a rehabilitation centre or a hospital centre designated by the director in accordance with this

section or paragraph b of

section 46 is bound to admit the child contemplated by the order.

Such order may be executed by any peace officer.” [ 12 ] The Court informed the witness that, on the very same week, it was presiding in Town B and dealt with the file of other female youths who were admitted in a reception centre during the same period of time. [ 13 ] The answer provided by the witness was: “If X was presenting something more serious, I think maybe we would have pushed a little harder (to have her admitted in a reception centre)” [ 14 ] This testimony reveals that, even if a judge stated that the child was displaying serious behavioural disturbances, the representatives of the Director of Youth protection second-guessed the Court decision and were of the opinion that it did not warrant a reception centre. [ 15 ] In fact, X was admitted at the Group Home on May 2, and left five days later for the goose break.

She came back a couple of days before the hearing. [ 16 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks for the review of the judgment rendered after the child had been in a rehabilitation centre for a period of five days. [ 17 ] It is useful to go back through the file: In the revision report written by [Social Worker 1] on November 21, 2015, it is written: “ Vulnerability of the children and impact on its security and development [...] For X, she is impacted by the parents’ behaviors emotionally and is developing and showing signs of behavioral disturbances herself according to the Foster Parent.

Signs such as skipping class at the school, and not going to tutoring classes as recommended by the school authority. X does however respect her curfew and chores at the foster home.” [ 18 ] The year before, Judge Jean Gravel, J.C.Q., on November 26, 2014, recommended that X present herself at school every school day. [ 19 ] This is to say that even in 2014 and 2015, the youth started to display behavioural disturbances regarding school.

The extent of her problems has not diminished over time and this is why Judge Grégoire wrote that “She acts in a way that she jeopardizes seriously her future.” [ 20 ] The Court cannot believe that in five days in a rehabilitation service, the problems were successfully dealt with. The Court is more of the opinion that we are facing conformism more than real, deep and long-lasting changes. [ 21 ] If the Director of Youth Protection was not in agreement with the judgment rendered in March, he should have appealed this judgment.

He cannot just enroll the child in school and plead, after five days in a rehabilitation service, that the situation has changed so much that rehabilitation is no longer necessary. [ 22 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT : [ 23 ] DISMISSES the application for review; [ 24 ] MAINTAINS the judgment rendered by Judge Louis Grégoire, J.C.Q., dated March 24, 2017. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Camille Champeval DPJ A Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Michel Grenier Lawyer for the youth Mtre. Myriam Gaudreault Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: May 26, 2017