r v. A, 2014 QCCQ 18238

Protection de la jeunesse — 146445 2014 QCCQ 18238 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004529-130 DATE: August 7, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 extension of a Court decision rendered on March 19, 2014 concerning X, born on […], 1999. [ 2 ] In the context of the last judgment, the Court prolongs various protective measures until June 24, 2014, in reason of a situation of educational neglect.

Particularly, the Court entrusts the adolescent to a rehabilitation center and orders that contacts with her parents be following mutual agreement between the parties. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that although the adolescent's situation improves since the last order, it remains pertinent to pursue the rehabilitation process in a structured environment, with a return in the family environment remaining the primary objective. [ 4 ] The parties consign their admissions to the Court file and agree to the Director's proposal as to the orientation of the measures. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] Since the last judgment, the adolescent remains in a rehabilitation center.

In this environment, she works on her anger management issues and makes progress in recognizing her emotions. She also shows more control as to her drug consumption. [ 7 ] Behavioural issues are still present. On numerous occasions, the adolescent runs away from the rehabilitation center. She continues to act impulsively and make decisions putting her in potentially high-risk situations. [ 8 ] The adolescent visits her parents on a regular basis. She states dissatisfactions as to each milieu.

Well-anchored in a loyalty conflict, she names feeling pressure to privilege each parental milieu and vacillates between these two environments, and this, to the point that it is not possible to orient an eventual reintegration. [ 9 ] The parent's communication remains difficult. The adolescent faces different rules and consequences in each household, situation that promotes her behavioural difficulties.

Furthermore, the parents fail to mutually support each other as to their daughter's education, entrenching the adolescent in a loyalty conflict. [ 10 ] Initially, both parents fail to fully cooperate with the intervention. This, in conjunction with their mutually distrustful relationship, stems the Director's efforts to rehabilitate the family environment in view of her eventual return home. [ 11 ] As of May 2014, the father increases his implication within the application of the measures. He states wishing to be able to

receive his daughter before the end of the present period of measures, and intends on presenting a motion for custody before the Superior court. [ 12 ] The mother's situation and implication varies little since the last judgment. Furthermore, her relationship with the adolescent demonstrates complexities, which result in conflict and discontent.

Although she certainly wants her daughter to progress positively, her lukewarm participation in the measures hinders the rehabilitation of her parental capacities. [ 13 ] It is only recently that the parties are able to work towards establishing a joint system of rules for the adolescent, thereby offering her more consistency in both her parental homes. [ 14 ] After considering the evidence, the Court determines that the adolescent continues to suffer the inconsistencies of her family environments.

The recent improvements in her situation, both behavioural and familial, are encouraging, yet are still far too fragile to justify a fundamental change in the orientation. [ 15 ] Both parents participation is essential to fully respond to the situation of endangerment and end the necessity of protective measures.

Notwithstanding, at the present time, in view of the father's active implication and motivation, the Court considers that it is reasonable to envision that it is his environment that the adolescent's reintegration be focused. [ 16 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation center; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the adolescent be determined following mutual agreement between the parties; [ 23 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the Adolescent Date of hearing: August 7, 2014