Two children now aged 7 and 9, caught in a serious separation conflict which is tearing both parents apart, had to wait eight months before their case was evaluated by the youth protection department (DPJ). And once their situation was taken care of, a plethora of people took over their case in the space of two and a half months.
Their rights were violated, concluded the Youth Court.
This case, which was the subject of a court judgment last September, is a concrete illustration of the consequences of the staff shortage and the organizational difficulties it poses for the DPJ. This time, it is the CIUSSS de l’Ouest-de-l’Île-de-Montréal and the DPJ of Batshaw which are at the center of this story.
It begins in spring 2020, when both parents separated.
Shared custody is then agreed, but it does not materialize in practice, since the youngest of the family refuses to go to his father. The mother is anxious and depressed, to the point that she was hospitalized in psychiatry in December 2021.
Alongside the mother’s problems, the youngest child develops problems: in particular he refuses to go to school. A social worker from the CLSC tries to support the mother, in vain.
The mother frequently intervenes when the father has custody of the children. In particular, she comes to school every morning to check if the children are dressed properly and to give them food. In court, she acknowledges her depressive state and claims to “come to terms with post-traumatic stress caused by domestic violence” suffered with the man.
The father denies any physical violence, but admits to “moments of openly expressed anger” in reaction to the behavior of his ex-partner. In particular, he refuses to allow the children and the mother to have video calls when the children are at home or any contact with the maternal family.
Both parents recognize the parental conflict, but they both blame the other for it. Children are clearly affected by this conflict. Their situation was reported for the first time in April 2021. Another report was recorded a month later.
The rights of injured children
However, it was not until January 2022, eight months after the initial report, that their case was evaluated: the DPJ then considered that their security and development were compromised. It is believed that there is psychological abuse, due to parental conflict, and a serious risk of neglect, due to the mother’s condition. The case is taken to court. The children are entrusted to the father and the mother’s access is restricted and supervised by the DPJ.
During these eight months while they wait for an evaluation, “children’s exposure to parental conflict is intense and [l’enfant le plus jeune] reacts strongly to it: does not show up to pre-kindergarten, does not go to his father, is anxious,” writes judge Martine Nolin.
“The Director justifies the delay by the large waiting list and the lack of staff in the team responsible for evaluating the accepted reports; it also attempts to delay the importance of this delay by reminding that the CLSC’s intervention is in place with the family. […] However, the evidence reveals that the support from the CLSC is limited due to the intensity of the mother’s distress and her disorganization; the situation of children changes little. »
In short, Judge Nolin believes, the rights of the two children were violated.
The administrative difficulties faced by the DPJ are certainly a reality, but they cannot prevent a declaration of violation of rights with regard to children.
Extract from the decision of Judge Martine Nolin
And the story doesn’t end there: once their case has been taken care of, a first responder is assigned to the two children’s cases. Between mid-June and the end of August, three speakers took turns on the file. “For at least two of them, they do not have the required availability,” notes Judge Nolin. A worker finally assigned to social monitoring met virtually with the children for 5 minutes. »
In response, the DPJ argues that social monitoring “was carried out during the transport of the children during contact with their mother and their return to their father”, indicates the judge. Twelve social workers assigned to emergencies carried out these transports.
“There is no evidence that they were without competence,” wrote the judge, “but it is illusory to believe that they had all taken sufficient notice of the file, established a minimally significant link with the children in order to create a environment conducive to discussions and clinical observations. »
“Unreasonable” delays
Once again, DPJ Batshaw pleads “limited human resources” to explain the large number of participants in the case, an explanation rejected by Judge Nolin.
“The succession of three unavailable social workers, from twelve different carriers in two and a half months, completely distorts the social intervention ordered in response to the protection needs of children,” she writes. Such instability in the provision of social services represents a violation of children’s rights. »
The CIUSSS de l’Ouest-de-l’Île-de-Montréal refused to comment on the specific case of the family which is the subject of the judgment. “Our CIUSSS is facing a labor shortage like all establishments in the health network and this particularly affects access times across the province. Several measures are explored and deployed by our teams to ensure the safety and quality of services offered to young people and their families. »
The children’s lawyer, Me Sophie Papillon says she is satisfied with the judgment. For her, the DPJ’s delays in evaluating the children’s case were clearly “unreasonable”.