2013 QCCQ 17449, 2013 QCCQ 17449

Protection de la jeunesse — 135915 2013 QCCQ 17449 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000238-048 DATE: July 18, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANTE 1], technician in social work, exercising her profession at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business […] in Town A, district A […] Applicant -and- X , domiciled and residing at […], district A […] Youth -and- A, domiciled and residing […] at Town A, district A […] Mother -and- B, domiciled and residing […] Town A, district A, […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered by Bélanger J. concerning X, born on […], 1996. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the adolescent is present and represented by her lawyer.

Both parents are absent although they were duly served. Moreover, the applicant met with the mother last week in preparation for the present hearing. She agreed with the Director's recommendations. The Court believes that it is in the best interest of the youth that the hearing be held in the absence of her parents.

ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present case does not raise any litigious issue since the adolescent recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and consents to the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 4 ] Nevertheless, the situation of the adolescent needs clarification in regards to the jurisdiction of the Court to allow the Director of Youth Protection to resort to short placements in a rehabilitation center in the event that the adolescent’s behaviour worsens.

ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 5 ] On December 10, 2009, the Court maintained that the security and development of the youth remained endangered and entrusted her to a foster family until her majority. [ 6 ] In fact, X has been living with the same foster family since 2004. Mrs. C and Mr. D have been caring for X since her childhood and love her as if she was their own. [ 7 ] However, during the last year X has shown disrespect towards her foster family by disobeying house rules and having recourse to excessive alcohol consumption.

In June 2012, this prompted a first petition for the provisional compulsory foster care of X in a rehabilitation center following which she returned with her foster family. The Director of Youth Protection then discontinued its motion for revision. [ 8 ] In fall 2012, the adolescent came back to some of her bad behaviour by hanging out with the wrong crowd, drinking alcohol and not respecting her curfew. This situation led to another provisional compulsory foster care order.

On November 15, 2012, Bélanger J. ordered that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of four months followed by her reintegration in her foster family.

[ 9 ] After her return in the foster family, written house rules were put into place and provided among other things that the adolescent be respectful and honest towards her foster family, that she respect a curfew and agree to stay away from alcohol and drugs. [ 10 ] On several occasions, it was difficult for X to respect her foster parents’ authority. She skipped school a few times. On one occasion, she stayed out the whole night and she was caught smoking drugs in her foster home.

Despite adjustment meetings, promises to her foster parents and a respite period, X’s behaviour remained troublesome. [ 11 ] On June 7, 2013, this situation led to another provisional compulsory foster care order of the adolescent in a rehabilitation center. The evidence shows that her last stay in a rehabilitation center has finally prompted X to seriously reflect on her behaviour and her future. [ 12 ] At the beginning, X found it difficult to be in a rehabilitation center.

However, despite the language barrier she soon seized the opportunity that was given to her to deepen her thoughts in the acknowledgment of her responsibilities towards her foster family and herself. She took the time to put her reflections in writing. In her testimony, X asserts that she now understands the importance of thinking before carrying out an action. Her future prospects are also an incentive to think before adopting a behaviour that puts her at risk. [ 13 ] X is an intelligent and gifted adolescent who has the potential to do great things.

Before her behaviour problems, X was an honour student at A Secondary School. Bad decisions and her placement in a rehabilitation center set her back in her studies. Even though she will pass her school year, she is willing to enrol in summer classes in order to get the necessary credits to enter grade 12 after which she will attend business school. [ 14 ] Throughout her emotional testimony, the Court appreciated to what point the applicant has put all her heart in her work with X. She believes in X’s potential and is willing to go the extra mile in order to support her in the fulfillment of her goals.

She is of the opinion that during her last stay at the rehabilitation center, X has acquired true insight that will help adopt a behaviour in keeping her life goals. Mrs. C, X’s foster parent is ready to take the adolescent back in her home. Her commitment towards X and her future remains unshaken. [ 15 ] The Court wishes to underline the applicant’s unfaltering commitment towards X. The Court was moved by her testimony, which goes to show that the work of a caseworker can make a difference in a youth’s life. [ 16 ] X hopes and dreams are within her reach.

The Court is hopeful that her latest reflections are signs of maturity, which will help her make the right choices for herself. She is lucky to be able to count on the support of her foster family as well of the applicant. It is now up to her to put into practice the teachings she received at the rehabilitation center as adulthood is around the corner. [ 17 ] The security and development of X remain endangered. All parties agree that the adolescent cannot live with either of her parents.

The Court remains convinced that the foster family of C and D are able to provide the security and stability that the adolescent needs. [ 18 ] Lastly, the Court must decide if it has jurisdiction to allow the Director of Youth Protection to send the adolescent up to four times in a rehabilitation center for maximum stays of four days each, while she is entrusted to her foster family. [ 19 ] The lawyer representing the Director of Youth Protection argues that nothing in

section 91 of the Youth Protection Act prohibits such an order that can be useful on a clinical basis. [ 20 ] In all honesty, the lawyer representing X asserts that she has the mandate to consent to such an order even if she questions its legality. [ 21 ] The third paragraph of

section 91 of the Youth Protection Act reads as follows: […] The tribunal may include several measures in the same order, provided those measures are consistent with each other and in the interest of the child.

It may thus authorize that personal relations between the child and the child's parents, grandparents or another person be maintained, in the manner determined by the tribunal; it may also provide for more than one place where the child may be provided with foster care and state how long the child is to stay at each of those places. […] [ 22 ] As provided by law, the Court may order that the youth be entrusted to more than one place.

In such event the Court must state how long the child will stay at each place. [ 23 ] In the Court’s opinion this doesn't mean that the court can allow in advance the Director of Youth Protection to resort to short placements in a rehabilitation center without deciding itself when and why these placements must occur. To interpret this

section otherwise would amount to an illegal transfer of the Court’s jurisdiction to the Director of Youth Protection. [ 24 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS partially the petition; [ 26 ] MAINTAINS that the situation of X born on […], 1996, is still in danger; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to a foster family until she reaches her majority; [ 28 ] ORDERS the placement of the adolescent with the foster family of C and D; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and her parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to the length, frequency and modalities; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth, her foster family as

well as to her parents; [ 31 ] GRANTS the authority to the Director of Youth Protection regarding authorizations for school activities, sports, leisure as well as medical consents for the adolescent; [ 32 ] ORDERS that X obey the house rules given out by the foster family; [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS that X engage in a moral contract with her foster family, by which she commits in respecting the house rules set by the foster family; [ 34 ] ORDERS any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing the present judgment; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the youth's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Marie-Ève Nolet Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre jeunesse A Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Peggy Warolin Lawyer for the youth Date of hearing: July 10, 2013