2012 QCCQ 17393, 2012 QCCQ 17393

Protection de la jeunesse — 126803 2012 QCCQ 17393 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-024652-117 Date: September 26, 2012 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 1997 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of September 26, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on July 6, 2011, whereby the now fifteen year-old adolescent, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with aid, counsel and assistance for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated March 30, 2012 are as follows: 3.1. in July 2011, due to ongoing behavioural problems, the adolescent was transferred from a community group home to the A Unit on the A Campus; 3.2. the adolescent has made certain gains in her behaviour, but ongoing behavioural problems persist; 3.3. in August 2011, the adolescent underwent a psychiatric assessment at the A Hospital, which resulted in a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; 3.4. from September 2011 to February 2012, the adolescent was prescribed Ritalin, which helped to improve her behaviour, but which also had negative side effects;

3.5. since a change in her medication in February 2012, the negative side effects have disappeared, but certain behavioural problems have recurred; 3.6. these behaviours include verbal and physical aggression, and defiance of rules; 3.7. since February 2012, the adolescent and mother have been participating together in the A Program in the unit; 3.8. despite some ongoing conflict, the relationship between the adolescent and the mother has significantly improved; 3.9. the adolescent visits her mother two (2) nights per week, and these visits are generally positive; 3.10. the adolescent also visits her father for one (1) overnight per week, and these visits are generally positive; 3.11. the adolescent has improved in her ability to accept the limits and boundaries set by the parents; 3.12. the situation does not yet allow for the adolescent to fully integrate to the mother's care (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, and considering more recent developments in the situation, the Director recommends that the adolescent remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Denault, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, also admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] However, both parents have very serious concerns about their daughter's safety in a rehabilitation centre, as more fully discussed below. [ 8 ] The adolescent, assisted by Me Stah, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures.

However, the adolescent would like to return to her parents' care within six months, if possible. [ 9 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-5 as evidence: D-1: Court report prepared by [social worker 1], dated June 4 th , 2012; D-2: Addendum prepared by [social worker 1], dated August 23 rd , 2012; D-3: Psychiatric evaluation, written by Dr. Emmanuel Cauchois, signed on July 9 th , 2012; D-4: Note from Dr.

Cauchois concerning the child dated 30/08/2012; D-5: Addendum written by [social worker 1] and dated 20/09/2012. [ 10 ] The mother filed a copy of the adolescent's medical records from the A Hospital [1] . [ 11 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion. [ 12 ] Moreover, the adolescent's behavior has continued to deteriorate since the filing of the motion. [ 13 ] The hearing was first scheduled to proceed on June 11, 2012.

However, as the adolescent had been seen twice at the B Hospital in April 2012 and given that a psychiatric assessment had been deemed necessary but had not yet been completed, the hearing was postponed to August 29, 2012 with the consent of the parties. [ 14 ] The proceedings were again postponed to obtain additional information regarding the adolescent's mental health and to have the benefit of her treating psychiatrist's testimony. [ 15 ] It should be noted that the parents' position varied during the course of the proceedings.

Although they have been separated for many years, they are both in agreement regarding their daughter's best interest and they appear to communicate positively and effectively to support her to the best of their ability. They are reported to be showing strong co-parenting skills and there is no doubt that they are deeply concerned about their daughter's well-being. [ 16 ] Initially, they were both opposed to their daughter's continued placement.

However, since their daughter's behavioral problems have escalated, as described in the last addendum, they acknowledge that her continued placement remains necessary. [ 17 ] However, they are extremely concerned about the rehabilitation centre's ability to ensure their daughter's safety.

They are adamantly opposed to her being transferred from B, a locked unit, to C, which is an open unit, on the A Campus. [ 18 ] The parents' fears and concerns are not unwarranted, as illustrated by the following recent events. [ 19 ] The adolescent has run away from the unit a number of times and repeatedly engaged in extremely self-destructive behavior: • On July 23, 2012, she ran away for a few hours and came back with a bruise on her face; she was allegedly assaulted by a fifty year-old man for refusing to perform sexual favours;

• On July 30, 2012, she ran away again, admittedly "seeking danger"; • On August 13, 2012, she ran away again and performed fellatio on a stranger for $ 5.00; • On August 21, 2012, she ran away for six hours and came back drunk with a homemade tattoo. Previously: • On April 25, 2012, she ran away and reported being raped by a fifty year-old man who had previously supplied her with drugs and alcohol; • On May 4, 2012, she returned to this same man's home.

She has also acted suicidal on several occasions: • Around July 2, 2012, she broke a light bulb and used the broken glass to harm herself; • On August 13, 2012, she took two to three times her regular dose of Biphentin; • On August 22, 2012, she took a quadruple dose of Biphentin; • She has currently stated her desire to end her life; • Her parents live in fear of "the next phone call". [ 20 ] It should also be emphasized that the adolescent was treated at the C Hospital following her suicide attempt at the end of August 2012 where: […] the medical staff had psychiatric concerns.

They released her after the Department of Youth Protection ensured they were providing services which included a shadow at that time and also a scheduled follow up with a psychologist the next day [2] (emphasis added). [ 21 ] In light of the grave danger to which the adolescent has been repeatedly exposed, as described above, counsel for the mother argued vehemently against the adolescent's prospective transfer from B to C within days following the hearing and insisted upon the Director of Youth Protection's obligation to consult with the parents pursuant to

section 7 of the Youth Protection Act : Before a child is transferred from one foster family or facility maintained by an institution operating a rehabilitation centre to another foster family or facility maintained by another institution operating a rehabilitation centre, the child's parents and the child himself , if he is capable of understanding, must be consulted .

The child must receive the information and preparation necessary for his transfer [3] (emphasis added). [ 22 ] Although the law provides that the parents must be consulted, the law does not require their consent to transfer a child from one facility to another. Moreover, the Court does not have jurisdiction to designate any particular rehabilitation centre.

However, the Court recommends that extreme caution be exercised in this regard by the Director of Youth Protection, given the adolescent's increasingly frequent, highly self-destructive behavior, and her inability to control her impulsivity. [ 23 ] In fact, the Court heard the testimony of the adolescent's psychiatrist, Dr. Emmanuel Cauchois. He elaborated upon the adolescent's diagnosis which includes attention deficit disorder, opposition defiant, some conduct disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Although he sought to emphasize that the adolescent's prognosis is good, he explained that the crux of her difficulties stem from her inability to control her impulsive behavior. Although there is every reason to be encouraging and hopeful for her future, he cautioned that there is no quick solution. The efforts the adolescent will need to make to overcome her difficulties will take time, and she can be expected to experience very painful mood swings. [ 24 ] He also emphasized her need for treatment – it is urgent and cannot be postponed.

She is incapable of controlling her impulsivity on her own and needs to be treated and to be controlled to avoid posing a risk to herself or others. [ 25 ] He explained that medication is the first step in the process. As of September 12, 2012, she has been prescribed Abilify, an anti- psychotic drug, to help her control her impulsivity. Psychotherapy would be the last part of the process, when she has made sufficient progress to benefit from it. [ 26 ] He recommends that she remain in a locked unit until she "calms down" and be transferred when she is better able to control herself.

He explained that the purpose of placement for her is to stop acting out and to be controlled sufficiently so that she does not act out. [ 27 ] Finally, he insisted on the importance of maintaining a strong collaboration between all involved in X's well-being, more particularly between the parents and the Director of Youth Protection. [ 28 ] Visits home should be introduced and increased gradually, as the adolescent's behavior improves.

The possibility of a gradual integration into her parents' care may serve as an additional incentive to help the adolescent comply with her treatment plan. [ 29 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the position of the parties, the Court concludes that the motion is well- founded and that the following measures are in the adolescent's interest. [ 30 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT:

[ 30 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 33 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be placed in a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months, with a possible reintegration to her parents' care, if the situation allows; [ 34 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescent is currently placed at B in "encadrement intensif", a locked unit; [ 35 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the testimony of the adolescent's psychiatrist, Dr.

Cauchois, is to the effect that the type of structure provided at B is required in order for the adolescent, in his terms to "calm down" and that when she has, in fact, "calmed down" she may be transferred to a group home, and consequently, STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent not be transferred without consulting Dr.

Cauchois to assess her level of self-control and without obtaining some assurance that her ability to control her impulsivity has improved sufficiently; [ 36 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the adolescent not be transferred before the next meeting is scheduled to take place with the parents in order to determine a plan that avoids placing the adolescent at risk as a result of her extremely impulsive behavior and in order to foster the parents' collaboration in the adolescent's interest; [ 37 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that contacts between the adolescent and her parents will be determined by consent among the parties; [ 38 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that contacts between the adolescent and her parents, as recommended by Dr.

Cauchois, will gradually and progressively be increased, according to improvements in the adolescent's behaviors; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the adolescent inform her parents of her whereabouts at all times when in their care; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school on a daily basis, unless excused by a medical note; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the adolescent follow the recommendations of her treating professionals; [ 42 ] ORDERS that she benefit from psychotherapy as soon as she is ready to do so; [ 43 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to communicate with school and treating professionals, to share and obtain relevant information about the adolescent, including psychiatric assessments and medical reports; [ 44 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of each party's consent to that effect; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the parents continue to collaborate with each other and the Director of Youth Protection in the adolescent's interest; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for A Centres provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 48 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 49 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Nadia Sabik / AN2652 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Lilian Stah / AS0DJ0 Attorney for the adolescent Me Louise Denault / AX9358

Attorney for the mother Hearing dates: June 11 and September 26, 2012 TD/vl