Children from Nunavik are placed with families of workers or former employees of the Director of Youth Protection (DYP). To the point where a judge mentions the existence of a “prolific family network for the placement of Inuit children” in the south of the province. A situation which has “appearances of a conflict of interest” and which “disrupts the relationship” with parents in the community, according to a retired lawyer.
The Nunavik Regional Health and Social Services Board (RRSSSN), which oversees the two DYPs in northern Quebec, recognizes that children are sometimes placed with workers. These may be emergency placements which arise in “exceptional and very short-term” situations where the employee, with the approval of his superior, will take the child with him if he does not find a home immediately. , explains the RRSSSN. In other cases, these are formal placements in host families where one of the parents works for the DPJ.
“Once the Inuit network is exhausted, we sometimes have to turn to non-Inuit communities. It is in these cases that non-Inuit people, coming to Nunavik for a work contract, can be considered as an option, often initially temporary, responds the Régie by email. In rare cases, the procedures take a long time and the child care worker returns to live in the South. »
The Régie assures, however, that in the case of placement with an employee, the accreditation process is “much more rigorous”.
Family sector
However, the rules are not always followed to the letter, notes judge Jacques Ladouceur, who looked into the case of a child barely 1 year old placed in a non-native family located more than 1,600 kilometers from his home. village. In his judgment, rendered in November 2022, and appealed by the DPJ, he questions the absence of steps taken to try, initially, to find a family nearby, as provided for by the Protection Act. of youth (LPJ).
“The most plausible explanation is that there seems to be a network of contacts between those involved in [la DPJ] and ex-DPJ workers, since the couple to whom the child is entrusted is made up, among others, of a man who worked for three years for the DPJ in [territoire] “, writes the judge in a document of more than 40 pages which anonymizes the names of people and places under the LPJ.
“It seems that a prolific family network for the placement of Inuit children exists, because the mother of the foster father having worked in the [territoire] also worked there and has an Inuit child aged 2 placed with her until she reaches the age of majority and her aunt, who also lives [la ville C], has an Inuit child aged 6 placed with her until she reaches the age of majority. »
The judge notes that the rights of the child have been violated by the DYP, since he has had no contact with his mother and members of his family since the placement, contravening the protocols and the Protection Act of the youth.
“In fact, the actions of the DYP allow us to reasonably believe that she did not want the child to have contact with his mother or his grandmother, his family and his community, in order to ultimately be able to justify the long-term placement. term of the child in the foster family in the South,” he writes.
“Due to the number and seriousness of the violations of rights committed by the DPJ in this case and considering the denial of the DPJ on this subject, we can seriously question the systemic nature of these contraventions of the law in link more particularly with the placement of young Inuit children outside [territoire] among white people. »
The Régie did not wish to comment on this decision for reasons of confidentiality, but assures that “colossal efforts are made to keep children in their community and close to their families”.
Speaker in the file
However, this story is not unique, it was noted The duty. In another judgment, which dates from 2020, the honorable Jean Gravel also examines the case of a 2-year-old child who has lived for more than a year in a foster family in the south of the province and whose the woman was an employee of the DPJ. “The daughter of the foster mother also welcomes an Inuit child,” specifies the judge, who ordered the child to be kept in this family which intended to return to the North.
In another 2020 decision, Judge Peggy Warolin recognized that the rights of an Inuit child were violated since she did not have the services to which she was entitled. She mentions in passing that the foster father was the caseworker for this child when he was in the North. “The host father has known X for a long time, he worked in the [village A]he worked for the DPJ and was specifically responsible for X’s file,” she wrote.
The judge, however, makes no comment indicating that this placement with the caseworker of the child could be problematic and grants the foster parents the parental authority requested by the DYP.
Appearance of conflict of interest
For retired lawyer Jean-Claude Latraverse, who worked in Nunavik and wrote a report on the itinerant court north of 55e parallel in 2022, this type of investment is undoubtedly problematic. He himself remembers being “angry” when he first learned of this practice in 2003, in a case where the child had been placed with a DPJ worker who had moved to the South.
There is, in this type of investment, “the appearance of a conflict of interest”, he explains in an interview with The duty. “I find it a bit odious, to the extent that they have contacts to have these children. »
According to him, this “disturbs the relationship” between the DPJ workers and the families of origin, because we can question the neutrality of the workers who must reassess the family to find out if the child can return to live with them. his parents.
“It is certain that if you enter a family as a Youth Protection worker and you see that the child’s safety is compromised, they will treat you like a child thief. And there, not only do they say that the speaker is stealing the child, but he is keeping him with him. How can we trust after that? It’s impossible. »