r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 20969

Protection de la jeunesse — 155384 2015 QCCQ 20969 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004554-138 DATE: December 9, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: […] 1999 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for revision and extension of a Court decision concerning X born on […] 1999. [ 2 ] In virtue of the judgment dating November 12, 2014, the Court prolongs the protective measures in place in reason of a situation of serious behavioural disturbances for one year, namely that the adolescent remain in a rehabilitation centre. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that although the adolescent makes progress, the parents continued disinvestment precludes her return in her family environment.

The Director seeks that the Court pursues the application of protective measures until her majority. [ 4 ] The adolescent consigns her agreement as to the Director’s proposed orientation. She further requests that the Court partially withdraw certain attributes of her parent’s authority in regards to schooling, outings and social activities. The attorney sends a letter to the parents notifying of this request (exhibit E-4). [ 5 ] The parents are aware of the proceedings as well as the conclusions sought by the Director and their daughter, but are absent from the hearing.

The Court proceeds on the motion in the best interests of the adolescent. [ 6 ] Analysis and decision [ 7 ] The adolescent evolves in a rehabilitation centre since February 2013. [ 8 ] Since that time, there are significant improvements as to the adolescent’s functioning on all levels.

She continues to struggle with her attachment disorder and behavioural issues remain present, resulting to her receiving intensive structure. [ 9 ] The adolescent is now focusing on her impending autonomy and is able to put forth positive life projects. [ 10 ] The dynamic between the adolescent and her parents remains largely static since her entrustment in a rehabilitation centre, despite the objective of working towards a reintegration. The adolescent has no visits home, as the mother mentions that her presence disturbs the family dynamic.

Only a few contacts occur at the centre, at the most on five occasions in the last two years. Telephone contacts occur, initiated mainly by the adolescent. [ 11 ] During the contacts, the parents lack emotional involvement and have a tendency to negative comments. X perceives that she is no longer a part of the family, which leaves her often frustrated, sad or angry. She considers that her behavioural issues justify her being

rejected by her family. [ 12 ] The parents cooperate minimally. They do not recognize the need to participate in the intervention nor as to the services put in place. [ 13 ] In June 2015, the Director of Youth Protection retains a new reason of endangerment, namely a situation of psychological ill- treatment stemming from the parent’s indifference and lack of involvement. [ 14 ] In the last judgment, the Court cites the following: [10] As for the parents, their involvement must be constructive and active.

In order to evolve, the adolescent requires the support of her family environment to encourage her development of positive behaviours and therefore verify the viability of her return home. This is especially pertinent considering that the maximum period of placement stipulated by the Youth Protection Act, is soon to expire. [ 15 ] The evidence demonstrates that although the parents lack of involvement result in their remaining mostly uninformed as to their daughter’s situation, they consistently refuse to authorize any outings, visits or activities.

This deprives the adolescent from socialization and further impedes her from progressing. [ 16 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the adolescent are in danger for the reasons put forth by the Director of Youth Protection, namely serious behavioural disturbance and psychological ill-treatment. [ 17 ] Both the adolescent and her parents recognize that her return in her family environment is not a viable in the short term.

Consequently, it is necessary to proceed to the establishment of a life plan in view of stabilizing the adolescent, orientation which is agreed upon by the parties. [ 18 ] The adolescent is 16 years old and it is necessary to focus on her preparation towards her autonomy. At this juncture, X needs to work actively on gaining self-confidence and developing her social skills.

The parents’ steadfast refusal to permit all forms of socialization is a reflection of their inability to vary their perceptions in function of their daughter’s needs and best interests. [ 19 ] The adolescent’s best interests therefore dictate that the Court withdraw certain attributes of parental authority and permit the Director to exercise such in order to work towards the attainment of the objectives of the intervention. [ 20 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motion for revision and extension of a Court decision; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be upon an agreement between the parties; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 27 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority as to decisions pertaining to the adolescent’s schooling, outings and other social activities and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exercise such; [ 28 ] ALL THESE MEASURES until the adolescent's majority, […] 2017; [ 29 ] 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 adolecent Date of hearing: December 9, 2015