2012 QCCQ 11759, 2012 QCCQ 11759

Source: Court of Québec

Date: 2012-06-07

Jurisdiction: Quebec

Citation: 2012 QCCQ 11759

Opinion

Protection de la jeunesse — 123226 2012 QCCQ 11759 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000543-124 DATE: June 7, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 1996.

Mrs [SOCIAL WORKER 1], duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection at Centre jeunesse A, having a place of business at […] at Town A, district A (Quebec) […]; Applicant and Mrs A, domiciled and residing at […] at Town B, district A (Quebec) […]; Mother and Mr B, domiciled and residing at […] at Town B, district A (Quebec) […]; Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 75 , Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q., c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to have the security and development of X, born on [...], 1996, declared in danger due to serious behavioural disturbance pursuant to

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The adolescent is present and represented by Me Karolane Bellerose. The father is present and not represented by a lawyer even after the Court explains his right in that regard. The mother is represented by Me Sylvie Gourd and the applicant by Me Julie Lemire. The facts [ 3 ] The adolescent's lawyer admits some of the allegations of the applicant's petition. However, she does not admit that the adolescent has a drug addiction problem but admits that she still uses drugs.

She also admits that the adolescent used drugs while she was in school and was suspended for a period of five days (March 2012). [ 4 ] The adolescent admits that it was very difficult for her to conform to the foster family's authority, which is not the same with her mother's authority. Her lawyer admits that her security and development are in danger pursuant to

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 5 ] The mother's lawyer admits most of the allegations in the applicant's petition. She also admits that the security and development of the adolescent are in danger pursuant to

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 6 ] The father admits most of the allegations in the applicant's petition. He denies that the adolescent has a drug addiction problem but admits that she used to smoke marijuana. He admits that generally the adolescent does not listen to him. [ 7 ] The Court considers that following the admissions and the testimonies heard there is preponderant evidence of the following facts. [ 8 ] The adolescent is the only child of her parents. The father is currently single and lives in Town C where he works.

The mother is in a common-law relationship with her partner and they share an apartment in Town B, Quebec. She is pregnant. [ 9 ] On December 8, 2011, an agreement on voluntary measures was signed to ensure the adolescent's protection in regards to

section 38 b) 2°) which is a situation of serious risk of neglect (drug and alcohol addiction on the part of the mother and the father, problem of instability of the mother and the father). A second subsection was also noted mainly in regards to

section 38

f) which is a situation of serious behavioural disturbance (inappropriate problem of behaviour, disreputable relationships problem and addiction problem).

[ 10 ] In December 2010, there was an agreement upon the parents that they would have shared custody of the adolescent. This never worked for this family. [ 11 ] In September 2011, the adolescent has been staying with her mother full time. The mother has quit using drugs and alcohol and has been assessed by the Centre A. Her results indicate no need for any follow-up with this organisation. [ 12 ] At this time, both mother and daughter report that the mother is meeting the adolescent's basic needs. The adolescent feels safe and happy with her mother.

It is during that period that the adolescent had a rather poor attendance in school (September to late November 2011). [ 13 ] On November 15, 2011, the mother shared with the Director of Youth Protection worker that she was moving out to Town C with her partner and wanted to take along her daughter. The father, who has shared custody, objected to the mother's project. The adolescent was placed in foster care with a family in December 2011 until March 1 st , 2012. The adolescent was then placed, for 48 hours, in a readaptation center.

On March 8, the Court granted that the adolescent be entrusted to her mother until Court on May 8. [ 14 ] The adolescent is 15 years old girl. She is currently in level ten and does very well academically. However she has been known to skip school occasionally as she finds herself bored in class once she has completed all her work. [ 15 ] She got caught on two occasions getting high on marijuana while on school property.

She was suspended for a period of five days for the first event and was given a second chance for the second event she was caught doing. [ 16 ] On April 5, her mother, following a phone call from school, took her to the hospital. The adolescent was so high that she was removed from class, as she was dysfunctional. She also continues to defy. [ 17 ] During her stay in foster care, the adolescent was involved in a relationship with a 20 years old man. She told the Court that this relationship is over.

On March 1 st , 2012, the foster parents informed the Director of Youth Protection worker that they could no longer continue to care for the adolescent. [ 18 ] On March 7, 2012, the Court entrusted the adolescent to reside with her mother. Shortly after, the adolescent was entrusted to her care; the mother left the country for a period of two weeks for holidays with her partner. The mother denies that she left for holidays saying that it was for a surgery. Then the adolescent was entrusted to her mother's in laws.

During that time, the adolescent did not obey the in laws authority. [ 19 ] Since her mother's return, the adolescent has continued to use drugs. Drug paraphernalia was found by her mother in her school bag. On two occasions, the mother contacted the police to intervene in their disputes. The situation ended well. [ 20 ] The adolescent continues to receive services from a psychologist. In addition, the consultations with an educator as well as with the Director of Youth Protection worker have recently resumed.

She has made some efforts to stop using marijuana for short periods of time but continues to relapse and falls back into the cycle of using. [ 21 ] The adolescent admits that she started using marijuana again. She agrees to be evaluated and have a follow-up with the Centre A in order to stop using drugs. She also admits having problem to respect authority. [ 22 ] Given the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of X are endangered pursuant to

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act . Applicable measures [ 23 ] The Director of Youth Protection requests that the adolescent be entrusted to her mother. [ 24 ] The adolescent's lawyer agrees with the recommendation. The adolescent already lives with her mother since the last Court order issued on March 7. The mother wishes to take care of her daughter full time. She is sober and ready to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection.

The father also agrees with the recommendation. [ 25 ] According to the applicant, the mother is able to seek support from the Director of Youth Protection worker when she is unsure as to what to do. She is very supportive of her daughter when things get difficult. [ 26 ] The adolescent's relationship with her mother has improved a lot since this fall. They are both very open in receiving input and support. The adolescent has a strong desire to move forward and live a happy and healthy family life.

She agrees to take the necessary steps in order to stop using drugs. [ 27 ] As for the father, he is also able to seek out support from the Director of Youth Protection worker when is needed. He has been showing a steady involvement in his daughter's life and is able to provide for her. [ 28 ] The relationship between the father and the adolescent continues to improve. The father does his best to apply structure and offer stability to his daughter.

The father calls more often to talk with his daughter and spends quality time with her since the calendar visits allows it. [ 29 ] After hearing all the evidence, the Court is convinced that the applicant recommendations are appropriate to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the adolescent are in danger. For these reasons, the court: [ 30 ] Grants the petition;

[ 31 ] Declares the security and development of X, born on [...], 1996, as being compromised under

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 32 ] Entrusts the adolescent to her mother; [ 33 ] Orders the adolescent and her parents to actively participate with the Court order; [ 34 ] Orders that all professionals involved in the file be permitted to exchange information; [ 35 ] Orders that a person working for an establishment or organisation provides aid, council and assistance to X and her parents for a duration of one year; [ 36 ] Orders that X be evaluated and have a follow-up for her drug addiction with the Centre Normand services; [ 37 ] Orders that the contacts between the father and the adolescent be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection worker as for the frequency, modality and length, while respecting the father's work schedule; [ 38 ] Orders that X continue her follow-up with the psychologist; [ 39 ] Orders any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 40 ] Entrusts the adolescent's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Karolane Bellerose, attorney for the adolescent Me Sylvie Gourd, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 8, 2012

Loading document…