Currently, a debate is emerging regarding the change in the Youth Protection Act and the importance of putting the needs of children before those of their natural family. The members of the Laurent commission and the 20 DYPs in Quebec are demanding a stricter law to promote the stability of the ties ensured by the maintenance of the child either in his family environment or in a substitute environment. However, this change in the law only makes sense if we first transform our protection system in depth.
In such an important case, we must neither start looking for culprits, nor divide the issues, nor set aside other children’s rights. Youth protection law must remain an exceptional law associated with the discretionary power of judges. No ” FastTrack therefore in such a complex field. No wall-to-wall measurements either, since each case is unique. We must treat them with the utmost caution.
How to define the best interests of the child?
The best interest of the child is not only his safety, but also his opportunities to exploit his full potential. His entourage (in the broad sense) must play a protective role to supervise his development.
In the search for the best interests of a child, there is also the cultural and social adequacy as well as the word of the child which add to the complexity of the process.
Finally, there is the ability of the various healthcare systems to provide appropriate support to families in difficulty. Without parental and community support, as is often the case today, there is no room to make the right decision. If the child’s entourage does not mobilize to consult about his well-being, there is no possible informed verdict.
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a collective support plan for the best interests of the child. There is however an intention to want to save an obsolete system rather than to innovate towards a more substantial change.
Illusory vision of the perfect family
Moreover, the proposal “of a family for life” and of “without a family, the child is badly taken for life” seems to us utopian. Where to find these perfect and ideal families which would guarantee the stability of children up to 18 years old? Only in exceptional cases, foster and adoption families can be durable solutions.
The perfect, permanent family does not exist in the real world. A supportive environment, with several reassuring attachment figures, is more easily found if you want to take the trouble. Early, continuous and respectful support for children and families at risk remains the most effective measure according to research data. Why not invest collectively in a project of this nature? It’s still time.
“Let’s dare to go further and higher” according to the DPJ. This sentence seems ambiguous to me, because there is nothing in sight to go higher. We cannot give carte blanche to the DPJ to define on its own the best interests of our children. If the past is a guarantor of the future, we will not improve anytime soon, and our children are at great risk.
What we need is not a “renovation” project, but a reconstruction project accompanied by a change of mentality and paradigm.