2019 QCCQ 17808, 2019 QCCQ 17808

Protection de la jeunesse — 196179 2019 QCCQ 17808 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] COMMUNITY OF […] Youth Division No: 614-41-000364-184 DATE: May 23, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant X, born on […], 2003 Child and A, unknown address Mother and B, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 A (the Director) asks the Court to review and extend the decision rendered on October 9, 2018, in the situation of X, 16 years old. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father and the youth are present assisted by Me Antoine Meunier and Me Marie-Piers Bartkowiak. Me Adelia Ferreira represents the petitioner. The mother is absent and not served. The youth informed her when she met her few days ago. The mother is not involved in her life.

The social worker left her messages in her extended family and to her social worker in City A. The youth wants to proceed in her absence. For these reasons and because she was absent on September 4, 2018, the Court agrees to proceed in her absence. [ 3 ] The youth admits most of the allegations and agrees with the measures. The father admits just a few allegations and he disagrees with the extension of the placement in a foster family.

He asks for her placement in a more structured environment such as reception centre. [ 4 ] A revision report is filed. [ 5 ] Evidence reveals that X is doing good in her foster family, that she attends school regularly and passes on all subjects except for Cree language. Her relationship with the father remains conflictual. [ 6 ] The youth refuses to return at her father’s house. She visited him few times at the family’s residence but she reports that her father remains the same and there are no changes. [ 7 ] The youth’s intransigence towards her father remains the same.

She blames him for smelling smoke, for being too harsh, etc. The father is unable to understand the reasons of such reaction, informed that the foster parents have quite the same rules than him. [ 8 ] He did not collaborate with the social worker. He met her when requested and it didn’t occurred often. He collaborated well with her when she informed him about the school absences of X. [ 9 ] The father is quite reluctant to receive specialised services in order to re-establish communication with his daughter. She is his only child and he takes care of her since she is 4 years old.

The mother never was involved in X’s life. [ 10 ] The father and the youth are quite closed to talk about their feelings and emotions. They would beneficiate of specialist services to re-establish such communication. The father loves his daughter and this might convince him to meet and open up with a psychologist. His daughter has to do the same. [ 11 ] For the social worker, regular meetings with the father, informing him of his child’s behaviour, her needs and evaluation are

required. He has to be involved in her life, he is the sole parent involved in X’s situation. [ 12 ] As the child intends to attend CEGEP next September, it is urgent to provide such services. The youth must develop her maturity and autonomy while working on the communication with her father. She will need his assistance to realise her study’s project. If she attends CEGEP, the Court will have to review the situation except if she transfer in another foster family.

This situation needs intensive services. [ 13 ] Considering the evidence, the Court is not convinced that the youth needs to evolve in a reception centre.

FOR THOSE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 16 ] ORDERS her placement in foster family for 13 months with reintegration with the father; [ 17 ] ORDERS the youth and the father to meet with a psychologist as long as required by the professional; [ 18 ] ORDERS the Director to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and her father for 13 months, the follow-up with the mother is conditional to her request; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that an intervention plan be prepared and given to the parties; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS the social worker to inform the father of the rules imposed by the foster parents to the youth; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS the father to receive counselling on his parental capacities; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parties to collaborate actively with the social worker; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in City B on June 11, 2019 __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Ève Bartkowiak Attorney for the youth Me Adelia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant Me Antoine Meunier Attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 23, 2019