The DPJ was severely blamed by a judge after favoring the placement of an Inuit child over 1600 km from home in a white family, leading to the triggering of an investigation by the Commission for Human Rights and Youth Rights (CDPDJ).
• Read also: [EN VIDÉO] Daycare in Mirabel: investigation opened by the Ministry of the Family into the baby forced to smoke
“We can seriously question the systemic nature of these violations of the law in connection […] with the placement of young Inuit children outside the territory with white people”, denounced Judge Jacques Ladouceur in a decision handed down nearly four months ago.
In his judgment, he also questions the intentions of the DPJ in the case of an Inuit child removed from his family shortly after his birth, in 2021. The organization seems to have limited itself to promoting the placement of the child. child in a white family rather than with members of his own family.
“It is easy to understand that for a mother, whose child is placed in the south of the province, with whites, more than 1600 km away, the situation is tragic and very suffering,” laments the judge.
The DPJ also prohibited the mother from any contact with her child following the placement, with the exception of Facetime calls. A refusal described as “cruel and unacceptable” by the Magistrate.
A “systemic” problem?
The story of this child and his mother does not seem to be an isolated case. In fact, the way in which the DYP acted in this file demonstrates “willful blindness” in order to promote the possibility that the child may remain in his foster family until he reaches majority, without worrying about the continuity of his identity. cultural.
When questioned by the Court, an interim assistant director of the DPJ affirmed that the goal was to find the “best” person to take care of the child, regardless of his culture.
“A child is a child. His culture does not come first,” she added, demonstrating her flagrant lack of consideration for the cultural aspect of the child, according to the judge.
Surprised by these “reductive” remarks, he described the intervener’s testimony as “worrying” because of the functions she occupies and her hierarchical position.
“The Court takes the liberty of saying that the present situation is disturbing and potentially systemic and that an intervention by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse appears necessary,” declared the judge.
Recommendations
Faced with the questionable actions of the DPJ, the Court ruled in favor of the mother and child, whose rights have clearly been violated, according to the Court. The DYP will therefore have to take steps regarding the existence of an Inuit foster family for the child, and will have to prioritize contact between the child and his or her biological family.
The judge also strongly recommended to the DYP that a training session on the history and culture of the Inuit people be set up and that it be provided to all its current and future employees.
Following these recommendations, the CDPDJ confirmed that it had opened an investigation considering the potentially systemic nature of the process that led to the placement of Inuit children in non-native foster families.
“The investigation is ongoing, but we cannot comment further at this time,” said Meissoon Azzaria, communications coordinator for the CDPDJ.
What the judge thinks…
“Let’s imagine the opposite situation. A baby a few months old is removed by the DYP from his non-native maternal environment and is placed in a [communauté autochtone] located more than 1600 km in air distance and the only contacts offered to the mother are Facetime contacts. Obviously, we would cry foul! »
“The knowledge by the DYP of the impact of its actions on the potential rupture of the bond of attachment is undeniable. To claim otherwise is tantamount to concluding that the DYP was ignorant of the basic principles of child development. »
“The way in which the DYP acted demonstrates intention or willful blindness in order to promote the possibility that the child placed in the current family can ideally remain there until majority, and this, without worrying about the important legal considerations to which it is required to comply with respect to Aboriginal children. »