Two children, aged seven and nine, who were in a serious separation conflict that was tearing both parents apart, had to wait eight months for their case to be examined by the Child Protection Agency (DPJ). And after her situation was resolved, numerous people took on her case within two and a half months.
Posted at 5:00 am.
The juvenile court ruled that their rights had been violated.
This case, which was the subject of a court ruling last September, is a concrete example of the consequences of the lack of staff and the associated organizational difficulties for the DPJ. This time, the CIUSSS de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal and Batshaw's DPJ are at the center of this story.
It begins in spring 2020, when both parents separated.
Joint custody is then agreed upon, but this does not come about in practice because the youngest in the family refuses to go to his father. The mother is so anxious and depressed that she was admitted to the psychiatric hospital in December 2021.
In addition to the mother's problems, the youngest child also develops problems: in particular, he refuses to go to school. A CLSC social worker tries in vain to support the mother.
The mother often intervenes when the father has custody of the children. In particular, she comes to school every morning to check that the children are properly dressed and to give them food. In court, she admits to her depressive state and claims that she has “processed the post-traumatic stress of domestic violence” that she suffered with her husband.
The father denies any physical violence, but admits to having had “moments of openly expressed anger” in response to his ex-partner’s behavior. 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 mother's family.
Both parents recognize the parental conflict, but both blame the other for it. Children are clearly affected by this conflict. Her situation was first reported in April 2021. A month later there was another report.
The rights of violated children
However, their case was not assessed until January 2022, eight months after the first report: the DPJ then concluded that their security and development were at risk. It is believed that there is psychological abuse due to the parents' conflict and there is a serious risk of neglect due to the mother's condition. The case is brought to court. The children are entrusted to the father and the mother's access is restricted and monitored by the DPJ.
During these eight months while awaiting an assessment, “children are exposed to intense conflict with parents [l’enfant le plus jeune] reacts strongly to this: does not show up at 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 defer the significance of this delay by recalling that the CLSC intervention occurs with the family. […] However, the evidence shows that CLSC support is limited due to the intensity of the mother's distress and her disorganization; Little changes in the children's situation. »
In short, Judge Nolin believes, the two children's rights were violated.
The administrative difficulties faced by the DPJ are certainly a reality, but they cannot prevent a violation of children's rights from being found.
Excerpt from Judge Martine Nolin's decision
And the story doesn't end there: As soon as her case is closed, a first responder will be assigned to the two children's cases. Between mid-June and the end of August, three speakers took turns working on the dossier. “For at least two of them they do not have the requisite availability,” Judge Nolin states. A staff member ultimately tasked with social monitoring met virtually with the children for five minutes. »
The DPJ counters that social surveillance “was carried out during the transport of the children, during their contact with their mother and their return to their father,” the judge states. Twelve emergency social workers carried out these transports.
“There is no evidence that they were incompetent,” the judge wrote, “but it is illusory to believe that they all took sufficient notice of the file and established a minimally meaningful connection with the children to provide a nurturing environment create.” Discussions and clinical observations. »
“Unreasonable” delays
Once again, DPJ Batshaw cited “limited human resources” to explain the large number of people involved in the case, an explanation that Judge Nolin rejected.
“The replacement of three unavailable social workers from twelve different agencies in two and a half months completely distorts the ordered social intervention in response to the protection needs of children,” she writes. Such instability in the provision of social services constitutes 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 that is the subject of the judgment. “Our CIUSSS, like all health network facilities, is facing a workforce shortage, which is particularly impacting access times across the province. Our teams review and implement various measures to ensure the safety and quality of services for young people and their families. »
Children's lawyer Me Sophie Papillon said she was satisfied with the verdict. For them, the DPJ's delays in assessing the child's best interests were clearly “unreasonable”.