r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 20623

Protection de la jeunesse — 157866 2015 QCCQ 20623 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-003795-104 DATE: October 6, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 1997 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On August 18, 2014, the Court renders a decision declaring the security and the development of X in continued danger in reason of a situation of serious behavioural disturbances and abandonment. Various protective measures are put in place until the adolescent’s majority, notably her entrustment in a rehabilitation center. [ 2 ] In March 2015, the adolescent presents motion to revise the preceding order, alleging that she no longer requires the structure of a rehabilitation center.

In view of her imminent majority, she initially asks to be entrusted to the care of Ms C, a long-term family friend. [ 3 ] The parents remain disinvested in their daughter’s life, an ongoing situation since her infancy. Her grandparents assume her custody since her infancy and represent her milieu of attachment. [ 4 ] In the group home setting, the adolescent’s behaviours vacillate. Her drug consumption remains ongoing and problematic. Although she continues to attend AA meetings, she refuses to seek more intense therapies destined to stem her drug use.

She fails to invest in the intervention and the measures destined to prepare her imminent autonomy. [ 5 ] On December 12, 2014, the adolescent leaves the rehabilitation center to see her boyfriend. Following her return the following January, she integrates an intensive unit. [ 6 ] On March 25, 2015, the Court renders an order on interim measures permitting contacts between the adolescent and Ms.

C and taking act of various commitments as to her behaviours and cooperation as to her follow-ups. [ 7 ] Overall, X is able to maintain her commitments, although she refuses to pursue her follow-ups regarding her mental health or drug issues. Visits are held with Ms. C, but it is difficult to verify the environment as there is little cooperation. [ 8 ] On July 13, 2015, the Court permits the adolescent to progressively integrate Ms CC’s home, while remaining accountable to the group home.

The situation evolves positively until September, as X remains drug free and respects her conditions. [ 9 ] In early September, X again leaves without permission to see her boyfriend and returns one week later. Ms C recants her commitment towards the adolescent, stating no longer having confidence in the adolescent. [ 10 ] X then asks to reintegrate her grandparent’s home and there is a provisional integration. The situation seems to be progressing positively. X is respecting the rules, is less oppositional and seems to be in control of her consumption.

[ 11 ] At the final hearing on the applicable measures, the parties jointly submit that the adolescent return to the care of her grandparents, who have assumed her custody since her infancy. [ 12 ] At this juncture, X no longer requires rehabilitation. She is aware of her difficulties and has shown her ability to assume pro- social behaviours.

Considering the imminence of her adulthood, her interests dictate that she return to her family environment, where she will receive the support and freedom required going forth. [ 13 ] After considering the evidence, the endorses the measures suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of the adolescent's best interests, while concurrently receiving the approval of the attending parties. [ 14 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] REVISES partially the order rendered on August 18, 2014; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to her grand-parents Mrs.

D and Mr E; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the adolescent or the grand-parents report every week by phone to the Director of Youth Protection to inform of the situation; [ 19 ] MAINTAINS all other conclusions rendered on August 18, 2014 not inconsistent with the judgment rendered today; [ 20 ] THE WHOLE until her majority, [...], 2015; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Ève Garceau Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P.

Poissant Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: October 6, 2015