2012 QCCQ 9483, 2012 QCCQ 9483

Protection de la jeunesse — 121324 2012 QCCQ 9483 JR 1585 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] «Youth Division»

N° : 505-41-006682-118 DATE : February 28 th , 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANTE 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of youth protection of le Centre jeunesse A, Petitioner -and- X, born on […], 1995 Child-respondent -and- A Mother-respondent -and- B Father-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Section 95 (1) of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 28 th , 2012, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) petitions the Court with a motion for review of a Court decision, according to section 95(1) of the Youth Protection Act , in the matter of the child X, born on […], 1995. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that since the Court order rendered on November 29 th , 2011, new facts have arisen. Mainly, the Director submits that the child maintains contacts with a young adult, C despite the recent Court order.

The Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 4 ] The parents admit all the facts alleged in the motion, as noted in the minutes of the Court. They testify in front of the Court.

[ 5 ] The child admits some of the facts alleged in the motion, as noted in the minutes of the Court. She is in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director. [ 6 ] Of assent and to be worth proof, the Director filed in proof an analysis of the child's social situation (Court report, D-2 ).

A letter signed by the child and copies of the child and C's Facebook pages are filed in proof ( D-5 ). [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that since the last Court order, the child remained entrusted to her parents. [ 8 ] Throughout the months of December 2011 and January 2012, the parents are suspicious about their daughter's behaviour. They watch her closely, being afraid she will maintain her contacts with C. [ 9 ] On the evening of January 19 th , 2012, the mother find a recent picture of her daughter kissing C. The child admits to her mother that she has been seeing Mr. C.

On that same night, the child brings home another boy who is under the influence of drugs. The parents contact the Director. [ 10 ] On January 20 th , 2012, the Court orders the provisional compulsory foster care the child by a reception centre following a request of the Director. C is present in Court on that day and reminded of the interdiction of contacts with the child. [ 11 ] Following the Court order, the child resides at the group home A. She attends a new school in Town A to avoid additional opportunities to have contact with Mr.

C. [ 12 ] Two days after arriving at the group home, the child is reported to maintain contacts with Mr. C trough Facebook. Evidence shows they are couting down the days before the child gets out of placement. Their Facebook's profile shows that they are now both engaged to each other. [ 13 ] On February 17 th , 2012, the child is transferred at group home B, a more secured environment. She attends school inside the group home. [ 14 ] The parents are overwhelmed with the situation. Both parents explain to the Court that Mr. C presents a great risk for their daughter.

He is an abusive man, provides young girls with drugs and alcohol and has threatened the father. The father explains that despite many discussions with the Peacekeepers, they have neglected to do anything. [ 15 ] The Court is also informed that the [Country A] have issued an arrest warrant concerning Mr. C. He appears to be one of [...] Probation Department's Most Wanted Violator. [ 16 ] Before the Court date, the child explains that she will resume her relationship as soon as she gets out of placement.

She hopes that her parents and family will accept him someday. [ 17 ] However, when she is heard by the Court, the child explains that she has changed her mind. She was informed that Mr. C is seeing other young girls and that he might not be a good person for her. She agrees to respect the Court order and to work on regaining the trust of her parents. [ 18 ] Mr. C is heard as a witness. He is informed, once again, of the Court order. [ 19 ] The situation of the child supports the measure of placement in a reception centre. By her actions, the child puts herself in danger.

She is engaged in a destructive relationship. [ 20 ] The child seems to understand now that Mr. C is not a positive person in her life. However, it took several Court orders and a placement outside her parent's home before she finally understands. [ 21 ] The parents try their best to support and educate their daughter and despite everything they do, they were not able to assure her safety. With the help of the Director, the child will have to work on regaining their trust in order to go back to their home.

The Court considers that the child does not belong in a reception center and that she should work hard to be reunited as soon as possible with a family that cares a lot for her. [ 22 ] The child is described as a bright young lady that does well academically. She also has a strong family unit to support her. Her main difficulty resides in the choices she makes in her relationships.

She will have to open up and work on those issues to attain her full potential. [ 23 ] FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS the placement of the child in a rehabilitation center; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for a body or an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents participate actively to the measures orders, more particularly that they meet with the Director of Youth Protection on regular basis;

[ 29 ] FORBIDS the child X to have any contact directly or indirectly with C; [ 30 ] FORBIDS C to have any contact directly or indirectly with the child X; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents follow an agreement between the parties; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child receives all care and health services required by her state, ore particularly that she received psychological assessment and follow its recommendations and RECOMMENDS that the assessment be made as soon as possible; [ 33 ] TAKES ACT that the parents will seek traditional counselling for family help; [ 34 ] TAKES ACT that the child authorises the parents to take out the name of C in her FaceBook contacts; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the judgment; [ 36 ] ORDER the execution of the judgment by any police officer; [ 37 ] THE WHOLE, for a period of six (6) months. ________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q.

M e Marie La Roche Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Marie-Pierre Blouin Lawyer for the child M e Éric Hamel Lawyer for the parents Me Patrick Cormier Lawyer for C