2016 QCCQ 14634, 2016 QCCQ 14634

Protection de la jeunesse — 166557 2016 QCCQ 14634 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000658-153 DATE: October 13, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 1999 [Social Worker 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et des services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town B, district B (Quebec) [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town C, district A (Quebec) [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 an application to review and extend a decision rendered on April 20, 2016. In this decision Justice McKenna concluded that the security or development of the adolescent was still compromised. She ordered that the adolescent be entrusted in a rehabilitation center until July 31, 2016, followed by a progressive return with his mother if the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The adolescent is present and represented.

The mother is present and represented as well. [ 3 ] The father is absent but the application was served at his mother’s place. On August 2, 2016, the Court hearing was supposed to proceed but it did not. A new notice was served personally to the father on August 24. [ 4 ] All the parties ask the Court to proceed even if the father is absent. [ 5 ] The adolescent is waiting for this moment for a long time. They argue that it is in his best interest to proceed today.

The Court agrees with them and orders to proceed today. [ 6 ] The parties submit to the Court a draft agreement in which they acknowledge some facts showing that the security or development of the adolescent is still in danger. The draft details these facts.

The parties propose as well measures to put an end to that situation. [ 7 ] The consent of the parties was given in a free and enlightened manner and the Court verified with them the validity of their consent. [ 8 ] The Court is of the opinion that these measures are likely to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the adolescent is compromised. These measures respect his rights and his best interest.

For these reasons the Court: [ 9 ] Maintains that the security or development of X, born on [...], 1999, is still compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; [ 10 ] Ratifies the measures enumerated in the draft agreement filed on D-8; [ 11 ] Orders the implementation of these measures; [ 12 ] Entrusts the youth’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this judgment.

__________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.Q.C. Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Peggy warolin, attorney for the youth Me Daniel Ouellette, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 6, 2016