When the DYP harms children herself
A shocking document obtained by La Presse claims that children were taken from their families on the basis of false or incomplete information to be placed for adoption.
The Direction de la protection de la jeunesse (DYP) of the Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec region has violated the rights of dozens of children, who were placed too quickly in a mixed bank in order to be adopted, reveals an internal document from the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec (CDPDJ) obtained by La Presse.
The shocking document also reports that reports containing false information had been knowingly filed with the court by workers, who were often undertrained and who were prejudiced against parents from "the system".
In its 34-page "factual statement", the Commission analysed the files of 140 children under the age of 6 placed in "mixed bank" or "regular" foster families between 1January 2021 and 1January 2023 in this region.
Responsible for conducting a "systemic" investigation, the Commission's investigator also questioned the local director of youth protection, parents, and 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 "takes in young children with the aim of adopting them [...]. Children referred to these families are at high risk of parental abandonment," according to the CIUSSS's definition.
The catch: 12% of the children in the sample analysed – or about one in ten – were placed in mixed-bank foster care following an assessment that was "not complete" within the meaning of the law, according to the survey.
That's not all. Nearly one in five children was placed in this type of foster care without any clinical tools being used during the evaluation. Some were placed (9%) without the seriousness of the facts being clearly established and without field checks having been carried out.
This is more than half of the children who have been placed in a foster family (all types of foster families combined) for whom the withdrawal standards have not been respected.
Living environments that can accommodate the child, including the extended family, were not considered in many cases.
More adoptions than elsewhereEach year, the Mauricie-et-Centre-du-Québec region puts three times as many children up for adoption as in more populous regions such as the Capitale-Nationale and six times as many as 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 DYP, had their babies taken away too quickly without
having the chance to prove their parenting abilities.
The investigator gives the example of a mother who received services from the DYP as a child and was placed in foster care until she came of age. A report is retained the day after giving birth.
However, the "concerns of the DYP appearing in the file are based only on the information obtained during her follow-up with the DYP until she came of age," notes the investigator. "The child is placed in an immediate protection measure at two days of life without an alternative plan being considered," the Commission deplores.
In another case, the DYP admitted to the parents during a meeting that there was an error in the report that would be submitted to the court, because it stated that "the father did not cooperate and that he did not go to his meetings." She said that she would correct the situation since the father was cooperating with him. Except that the facts have never been corrected; The erroneous reports were presented to the court.
In these same reports, the worker omits crucial information, namely that the parents show up at each supervised visit with what the baby needs and that all contact goes smoothly and without the intervention of the contact supervisor, notes the Commission's investigator.
In fact, important decisions are often based solely on the judgment of the intervenor in the case. The Commission's investigation shows that there are virtually no decision-making committees regarding the future of infants.
In several cases, adoption procedures have been initiated without meeting the criteria set out in the law. In some cases, erroneous information was put forward as part of an application for eligibility for adoption, according to this investigation.
Supposed to promote the "active participation" of parents, the DYP in this region did not offer any adequate support or social follow-up to these parents in a majority of cases (69%).
When parents asked the DYP for help, their requests were ignored or refused, according to several files analyzed.
In many cases (46 per cent), the "facts" stated in the evaluation reports are not supported by any evidence and have not been further verified, the Commission also found.
Information is neither verified nor validated with the parents and professionals concerned, the investigator insists in her report.
The Commission's investigation shows a lack of analysis of the criteria established to remove a child from his or her environment in a majority of cases (54%). For example, one worker writes that "they came very close to removing the children to raise awareness among the mother." However, "this situation is not part of the criteria for removal from the family environment," says the Commission's investigator.
Lack of supporting reasonsProhibitions on contact between parents and their child were requested by the DYP in the court in the majority of cases.
However, in 64% of the cases where a contact ban was issued, the Commission was unable to understand the facts that justified such a measure by reading the reports.
Worse still, "these prohibitions were all ratified by the specialists in clinical activity (SAC), the department heads, as well as the legal department of the CIUSSS de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec, without any of them being questioned," the Commission's investigator discovered.
"Courtesy and neutrality issues" on the part of the workers towards parents were also observed, as well as shortcomings related to the DYP's responsibilities to offer help, advice and assistance (54% of cases).
In several cases, information is omitted, manipulated and/or invented in order to catch the parents at fault.
The Commission's Investigator
Sometimes, interventions between different members of the same sibling are not coherent. "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," the survey says.
In many situations, the analysis of the situation is based "essentially on the opinions, biases and prejudices of the stakeholders," the investigator also notes. Clinical tools are little or not used, she found.
Deficiencies in supervised accessMany shortcomings in the conduct of supervised visits between 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 supervised visits.
Regarding a mother of four, the worker wrote: "At 4:42 p.m., X [one of the mother's children]
was eating cookies with creaming. The mother lets her do it."
The problems revealed in the context of the investigation are not concentrated in an office in the region, the investigator insists in concluding her statement of facts. They "occur in all regions of the Mauricie-Centre-du-Québec region, without distinction."
Since the investigation is still ongoing and the final report has not yet been tabled, the CDPDJ declined our request for an interview. Normally, the organization specifies, investigation reports are not public, but "at the end of the investigation, the Commission may make public the systemic recommendations."
"We had a lot of requests for an investigation for the region in 2023-2024, many of which are related to the same respondents, hence the launch of a systemic investigation. The objective of the investigation, like all those that are carried out in accordance with what the Youth Protection Act provides, is to correct situations in which the DYP or another link in the youth protection system has not respected one of the rights provided for in the YPA for one or more children." explains spokeswoman Halimatou Bah.
In a reaction sent to La Presse by email, the director of regional youth protection Martine Scarlett said that her CIUSSS takes "the content of the factual presentation very seriously" and assures that it offers its "full cooperation to the CDPDJ since the beginning of its investigation."
In parallel with the CDPDJ's investigation, the CIUSSS de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec and the DYP commissioned a "complete and independent review" of the 140 files analyzed by the CDPDJ. "The goal of this is to ensure that every decision made in these cases is in the best interests of the child,"adds Scarlett.
"Considering the seriousness of the facts reported, after a rigorous analysis, we will take the right and appropriate measures, which may go as far as dismissal," says the director of the regional DYP, who says she is waiting for the report and official recommendations "before commenting further."
The shocking document also reports that reports containing false information had been knowingly filed with the court by workers, who were often undertrained and who were prejudiced against parents from "the system".
In its 34-page "factual statement", the Commission analysed the files of 140 children under the age of 6 placed in "mixed bank" or "regular" foster families between 1January 2021 and 1January 2023 in this region.
Responsible for conducting a "systemic" investigation, the Commission's investigator also questioned the local director of youth protection, parents, and 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 "takes in young children with the aim of adopting them [...]. Children referred to these families are at high risk of parental abandonment," according to the CIUSSS's definition.
The catch: 12% of the children in the sample analysed – or about one in ten – were placed in mixed-bank foster care following an assessment that was "not complete" within the meaning of the law, according to the survey.
That's not all. Nearly one in five children was placed in this type of foster care without any clinical tools being used during the evaluation. Some were placed (9%) without the seriousness of the facts being clearly established and without field checks having been carried out.
This is more than half of the children who have been placed in a foster family (all types of foster families combined) for whom the withdrawal standards have not been respected.
Living environments that can accommodate the child, including the extended family, were not considered in many cases.
More adoptions than elsewhereEach year, the Mauricie-et-Centre-du-Québec region puts three times as many children up for adoption as in more populous regions such as the Capitale-Nationale and six times as many as 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 DYP, had their babies taken away too quickly without
having the chance to prove their parenting abilities.
The investigator gives the example of a mother who received services from the DYP as a child and was placed in foster care until she came of age. A report is retained the day after giving birth.
However, the "concerns of the DYP appearing in the file are based only on the information obtained during her follow-up with the DYP until she came of age," notes the investigator. "The child is placed in an immediate protection measure at two days of life without an alternative plan being considered," the Commission deplores.
In another case, the DYP admitted to the parents during a meeting that there was an error in the report that would be submitted to the court, because it stated that "the father did not cooperate and that he did not go to his meetings." She said that she would correct the situation since the father was cooperating with him. Except that the facts have never been corrected; The erroneous reports were presented to the court.
In these same reports, the worker omits crucial information, namely that the parents show up at each supervised visit with what the baby needs and that all contact goes smoothly and without the intervention of the contact supervisor, notes the Commission's investigator.
In fact, important decisions are often based solely on the judgment of the intervenor in the case. The Commission's investigation shows that there are virtually no decision-making committees regarding the future of infants.
In several cases, adoption procedures have been initiated without meeting the criteria set out in the law. In some cases, erroneous information was put forward as part of an application for eligibility for adoption, according to this investigation.
Supposed to promote the "active participation" of parents, the DYP in this region did not offer any adequate support or social follow-up to these parents in a majority of cases (69%).
When parents asked the DYP for help, their requests were ignored or refused, according to several files analyzed.
In many cases (46 per cent), the "facts" stated in the evaluation reports are not supported by any evidence and have not been further verified, the Commission also found.
Information is neither verified nor validated with the parents and professionals concerned, the investigator insists in her report.
The Commission's investigation shows a lack of analysis of the criteria established to remove a child from his or her environment in a majority of cases (54%). For example, one worker writes that "they came very close to removing the children to raise awareness among the mother." However, "this situation is not part of the criteria for removal from the family environment," says the Commission's investigator.
Lack of supporting reasonsProhibitions on contact between parents and their child were requested by the DYP in the court in the majority of cases.
However, in 64% of the cases where a contact ban was issued, the Commission was unable to understand the facts that justified such a measure by reading the reports.
Worse still, "these prohibitions were all ratified by the specialists in clinical activity (SAC), the department heads, as well as the legal department of the CIUSSS de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec, without any of them being questioned," the Commission's investigator discovered.
"Courtesy and neutrality issues" on the part of the workers towards parents were also observed, as well as shortcomings related to the DYP's responsibilities to offer help, advice and assistance (54% of cases).
In several cases, information is omitted, manipulated and/or invented in order to catch the parents at fault.
The Commission's Investigator
Sometimes, interventions between different members of the same sibling are not coherent. "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," the survey says.
In many situations, the analysis of the situation is based "essentially on the opinions, biases and prejudices of the stakeholders," the investigator also notes. Clinical tools are little or not used, she found.
Deficiencies in supervised accessMany shortcomings in the conduct of supervised visits between 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 supervised visits.
Regarding a mother of four, the worker wrote: "At 4:42 p.m., X [one of the mother's children]
was eating cookies with creaming. The mother lets her do it."
The problems revealed in the context of the investigation are not concentrated in an office in the region, the investigator insists in concluding her statement of facts. They "occur in all regions of the Mauricie-Centre-du-Québec region, without distinction."
Since the investigation is still ongoing and the final report has not yet been tabled, the CDPDJ declined our request for an interview. Normally, the organization specifies, investigation reports are not public, but "at the end of the investigation, the Commission may make public the systemic recommendations."
"We had a lot of requests for an investigation for the region in 2023-2024, many of which are related to the same respondents, hence the launch of a systemic investigation. The objective of the investigation, like all those that are carried out in accordance with what the Youth Protection Act provides, is to correct situations in which the DYP or another link in the youth protection system has not respected one of the rights provided for in the YPA for one or more children." explains spokeswoman Halimatou Bah.
In a reaction sent to La Presse by email, the director of regional youth protection Martine Scarlett said that her CIUSSS takes "the content of the factual presentation very seriously" and assures that it offers its "full cooperation to the CDPDJ since the beginning of its investigation."
In parallel with the CDPDJ's investigation, the CIUSSS de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec and the DYP commissioned a "complete and independent review" of the 140 files analyzed by the CDPDJ. "The goal of this is to ensure that every decision made in these cases is in the best interests of the child,"adds Scarlett.
"Considering the seriousness of the facts reported, after a rigorous analysis, we will take the right and appropriate measures, which may go as far as dismissal," says the director of the regional DYP, who says she is waiting for the report and official recommendations "before commenting further."