2016 QCCQ 18558, 2016 QCCQ 18558

Protection de la jeunesse — 169481 2016 QCCQ 18558 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division » N° : 525-41-031566-169 DATE : October 25, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2003 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on October 25, 2016. [ 2 ] On April 28, 2016, the Honourable Eric Hamel ordered the placement of the child in a rehabilitation centre with other support measures until August 31, 2016. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) states that the return of the child to her mother’s care is premature.

The Director is recommending the extension of the child’s placement until January 31, 2017 and that support measures be maintained for one year. [ 4 ] The father agrees with the Director’s recommendations. [ 5 ] The mother and the child are of the opinion that the child’s immediate return to the mother’s care is warranted. They suggest that a three month interim judgment be rendered entrusting the child to the mother. Question in litigation [ 6 ] Is it necessary to extend the child’s placement? Context [ 7 ] The child is doing well in the group home. She follows the program’s expectations and structure.

She is also doing well in school. [ 8 ] She visits her parents on a regular basis and generally, the visits are positive. [ 9 ] On June 15 and July 25, 2016, the mother expressed being frustrated as the child took some items of clothing from her. The child mentioned that the mother had called her names. [ 10 ] The youth protection worker noticed that, since August 2016, the child and the mother’s collaboration with her follow up is more difficult. [ 11 ] However, the mother and the child now report that the situation is much better. They argue less often and the mother does not

denigrate the child anymore. [ 12 ] The parents’ relationship remains problematic. [ 13 ] The child’s situation is still fragile, as two weeks ago the child had an episode where she cut herself. Analysis [ 14 ] On April 21, 2016, the child was seen by a psychiatrist at the Douglas Hospital.

This psychiatrist recommended that the child remain in placement for the time being as she benefited from the structure provided by the group home. [ 15 ] The father sees change in the child’s behaviours but believes that the situation is too fragile to permit, at this point, a full return of the child to her mother’s care. [ 16 ] The parents and the child agree that more work is necessary to ensure a successful return home.

Could this work be done while the child is home? [ 17 ] Considering that the situation evolved sufficiently, the Court will agree with the child and the mother’s recommendation. [ 18 ] The youth protection worker confirms that the family could receive support from an educator even if the adolescent is entrusted to her mother. [ 19 ] The mother reports being on a waiting list to receive individual counselling from the CLSC.

She acknowledges minor difficulties with the child at home, but states that the child generally respects her rules and helps out in the home. [ 20 ] The child wishes to participate in activities at the YMCA and to receive anger management. She continues to be followed by a psychiatrist and her medication was recently adjusted. [ 21 ] The mother and the child remain open to receive support from an educator and from the youth protection worker. [ 22 ] Sufficient positive factors are now in place in order to permit the child’s return home.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still in danger; [ 24 ] SETS the continuation of the hearing in front of the undersigned on January 31, 2017 in room 2.06; [ 25 ] In the meantime: [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of her mother; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 28 ] TAKES ACT that the mother agreed to continue to get psychotherapeutic follow up for herself; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents not denigrate each other in the presence of the child; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child and her parents take

part in the application of the measures; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family with the support of an educator as soon as possible; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Signed on November 7, 2016 /cd Mtre Sym Davis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Luce James Counsel for the adolescent Mtre Judith Shapiro-Knight Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: October 25, 2016