The Department of Youth Protection (DPJ) does too much. She doesn’t do enough. She makes it with too little. She hurts him. Sometimes the children are removed too quickly from their environment, sometimes not enough. We don’t give parents enough chances, but when the worst happens, it’s that we’ve given too many. We can understand why the subject of youth protection arouses passions, because it should, and full time.
Posted at 9:00 a.m.
We lack a broader reflection on what causes abuse. We tend to think that it is a marginal phenomenon, limited to idle or mean parents. However, a Canadian study shows that 32% of the adult population suffered from childhood abuse.1. It’s huge. Abuse is a much deeper social problem, which requires a radical change of approach and the recognition that it affects us all directly or indirectly.
The people of Quebec have the impression that the files of the type of the little girl from Granby are anomalies that occur every six months: it is at this rate that the various facts on the subject are published. But the reality is that the cases of the children of the DPJ are always heavy, that this file probably did not stand out from the volume which passes between the hands of the interveners, the lawyers, the judges.
There are thousands of them in Quebec right now, little girls from Granby. As a society, we have not taken the necessary steps to help them.
Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Laurent commission and Bill 15 are not enough. We have read a great deal in the press of the myth according to which the interest of the child does not come first in the current version of the law, that there is a principle like that of parental primacy. It is simply wrong. This principle of parental primacy has never been in the law. The law before the reform provided for the maintenance in a family environment as much as possible and required that all decisions be taken in the interest of the child. The latest changes to the law are essentially cosmetic and use exactly the same terms. They will in no way change what happens where a huge portion of decisions in youth protection are made: in court.
The report of the Laurent commission paid very little attention to the legal aspect of the Youth Protection Act. For good reason: it is an understudied area of law, with very few university specialists to dissect the ins and outs. It is also an under-taught area. The vast majority of Quebec law faculties only offer a youth law course as an option, taught by a lecturer, generally once every two or three years.
However, lawyers of people who have studied a bachelor’s degree in law without compulsory additional training are entrusted with the responsibility of arguing and deciding what constitutes “the interest of the child”.
There is obviously a lack of coordination between the clinical specialists in child development and those who most often, in the end, make the decisions that concern them: judges.
Instead of vilifying the DPJ or adding redundant articles of law, it is time to ask that the places where we can find different ways of doing things for our children be reinvested: valuing childhood in university programs by law, social work, health, psychology, and create sustainable work sites not only with the CIUSSS (which, to do this, must get out of their managerial logic), but also with legal institutions. We need to set up real interdisciplinary spaces to rethink the way we address these issues. In terms of youth protection, reforms will not be enough. It takes constant development.
1. Tracie Afifi and there., Child abuse and mental disorders in Canada (2014), volume 186 no.oh 9, Canadian Medical Association JournalE324