When the DPJ itself harms the children

The Youth Protection Department (DPJ) of Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec violated the rights of dozens of children, placed too quickly in a mixed bank with a view to being adopted, reveals a document internal emanating from the Commission on Human Rights and Youth Rights of Quebec (CDPDJ) that The Press got.

The shocking document also relates that reports containing false information had been knowingly filed in court by workers, often too poorly trained and who maintain prejudices against parents from “the system”.

In its 34-page “factual presentation”, the Commission analyzed the files of 140 children under the age of 6 placed in “mixed bank” or “regular” type foster families between 1^er January 2021 and the 1^er January 2023 in this region.

Responsible for conducting a “systemic” investigation, investigator Gina St-Laurent also interviewed the director of local youth protection, parents, as well as stakeholders involved in the cases, in addition to analyzing exchanges between the stakeholders and families (recordings and emails).

His analysis recorded in a document dating from last July has never been made public.

The flaws identified are legion.

A “mixed bank” foster family is a foster family that “receives young children with the aim of adopting them […]. Children referred to these families are at high risk of parental abandonment,” according to the CIUSSS definition.

The problem: 12% of the children in the sample analyzed – or around one in ten – were placed in a mixed bank-type foster family following an evaluation which “was not complete” within the meaning of the law, according to the investigation.

That’s not all. Nearly one in five children were placed in this type of foster family without any clinical tools being used during the assessment. Some were placed (9%) without the seriousness of the facts being clearly established and without field verifications having been carried out.

More than half of the children who were placed in a foster family (all types of foster families combined) for whom removal standards were not respected.

Living environments that can accommodate the child, including the extended family, have not been considered in many cases.

More adoptions than elsewhere

Each year, the Mauricie-et-Centre-du-Québec region puts three times more children up for adoption than in more populous regions such as the Capitale-Nationale and six times more than in regions such as Laval, according to data from the Ministry of Health and Social Services cited in the internal document.

Parents, themselves former children of the DPJ, had their babies taken away too quickly without having the chance to prove their parental abilities.

The investigator gives the example of a mother who received services from the DYP in her childhood and was placed in foster care until she reached the age of majority. A report is taken the day after her delivery.

However, the “concerns of the DPJ appearing in the file are only based on the information obtained during her DPJ monitoring until she reached the age of majority,” notes the investigator. “The child is placed in immediate protection measures at two days of life without an alternative plan being considered,” deplores the Commission.

In another case, the DYP admits to the parents during a meeting that there is an error in the report which will be submitted to the court, because it mentions that “the father did not collaborate and that he was not going to not at his meetings.” The worker says that she will correct the situation since the father is collaborating. Except that the facts were never corrected; the erroneous reports were presented to the court.

In these same reports, the worker omits crucial information, namely that the parents appear at each supervised visit with the necessary items for the baby and that all contacts take place without a hitch and without intervention from the contact supervisor, notes the Commission investigator.

Moreover, very often, important decisions are based solely on the judgment of the person involved in the file. The Commission’s investigation shows a virtual absence of decision-making committees regarding the future of infants.

In several cases, adoption procedures have been initiated without the criteria provided for by law being met. In certain files, erroneous information was put forward as part of a request for eligibility for adoption, again according to this investigation.

Supposed to promote the “active participation” of parents, the DYP in this region nevertheless offered no support or adequate social monitoring to said parents in a majority of cases (69%).

When parents requested help from the DPJ, their requests were ignored or refused, several files analyzed demonstrate.

In many files (46%), the “facts” stated in the evaluation reports are not based on any evidence and have not been the subject of any additional verification, the Commission also discovered.

Information is neither verified nor validated with the parents and professionals concerned, insists the investigator in her report.

The Commission’s investigation demonstrates a lack of analysis of the criteria established for removing a child from their environment in a majority of cases (54%). For example, one speaker writes that “they came very close to removing the children to raise awareness of the mother”. However, “this situation is not part of the criteria for withdrawal from the family environment”, specifies the Commission investigator.

Lack of supporting reasons

Contact bans between parents and their child were requested from the court by the DPJ in the majority of cases.

However, in 64% of cases where a contact ban was imposed, the Commission was unable to understand the facts which justified such a measure by reading the reports.

Worse still, “these prohibitions were all ratified by the specialists in clinical activity (SAC), the heads of department, as well as the litigation of the CIUSSS de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec, without any “between them is not called into question”, discovered the Commission investigator.

“Issues of courtesy and neutrality” on the part of the workers towards the parents were also observed as well as shortcomings related to the responsibilities of the DYP to offer help, advice and assistance (54 % of files).

Sometimes, interventions between different members of the same siblings are not consistent. “For the same situation, measures will be put in place for one child, but not the others, even though their level of vulnerability is comparable,” we learn in the survey.

In many situations, the analysis of the situation is based “essentially on the opinions, biases and prejudices of the stakeholders”, also notes the investigator. Clinical tools are little or not used, she discovered.

Gaps in supervised visits

Numerous shortcomings in the conduct of supervised visits between the parent and child are also raised. Information and observations that are irrelevant and unrelated to the reasons for compromise (reasons for reporting) are collected in the file following the supervised visits.

Regarding a mother of four children, the speaker wrote: “at 4:42 p.m., [l’un des enfants de la mère] eat biscuits with cream. The mother lets her do it.”

The problems demonstrated during the investigation are not concentrated in one office in the region, the investigator wishes to clarify at the conclusion of her presentation of the facts. They “occur in all regions of Mauricie–Centre-du-Québec, without distinction.”

Since the investigation is still ongoing and the final report has not yet been filed, the CDPDJ declined our interview request. Normally, the organization specifies, investigation reports are not public, but “at the end of the investigation, the Commission could make systemic recommendations public.”

“We have had many requests for investigation for the region in 2023-2024, several of which are linked to the same defendants, hence the triggering of a systemic investigation. The objective of the investigation, like all those that we do in accordance with what the Youth Protection Act provides, is to correct situations in which the DPJ or another link in the youth protection system has not respected one of the rights provided for in the LPJ for one or more children,” explains spokesperson Halimatou Bah .

In a reaction sent to The Press by email, the director of regional youth protection Martine Scarlett affirms that her CIUSSS takes “the content of the factual presentation very seriously” and assures to offer her “full collaboration with the CDPDJ since the start of its investigation”.

In parallel with the CDPDJ investigation, the CIUSSS de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec and the DPJ ordered a “complete and independent review” of the 140 files analyzed by the CDPDJ. “The objective of this approach is to guarantee that each decision taken in these cases is in accordance with the best interests of the child,” adds Ms.^me Scarlett.

“Considering the seriousness of the facts reported, after a rigorous analysis, we will take fair and appropriate measures, which could go as far as dismissal,” said the director of the regional DPJ, who specifies that she is awaiting the report and official recommendations “before commenting.” any further “.