Is the DPJ abusing the notion of pandemic?

According to Valérie Assouline, at least 4,000 families are deprived of their children, even if a court has granted them access rights.

“This situation is discriminatory,” protests the Montreal lawyer. “In family matters, child custody judgments issued by the Superior Court are respected during a pandemic. So why are decisions rendered by the Court of Quebec in matters of youth protection and giving parents access rights to their children not respected? It’s an aberration!”

In his motion for a declaratory judgment and an interlocutory injunction, Me Assouline argues that the DPJ is abusively interpreting the ministerial order adopted by Quebec on March 19.

This order provides that the conclusions of a decision ordering physical contact between the child and his or her parents or grandparents are suspended to the extent that the director of youth protection considers (…) that these conclusions cannot be respected in a way that protects the health of the population in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, since the start of the health crisis, children who are placed in foster care or in youth centres no longer have any contact with their natural family due to the way the DPJ interprets this.

A mother about to be reunited with her children

In March, before the health crisis, a mother of three, who had experienced a period of disorganization and a chaotic move, was on the way to regaining control of her life.

The woman, who had retained custody of her baby, scrupulously respected her access rights to her two eldest children, who had been in foster care since September 2018.

The agreement reached between the parties, including the DPJ, provided for a gradual reintegration of the elders into the mother's home in June 2020, and a full integration at the start of the next 2020-2021 school year.

Then at the end of March, the mother learned from a worker that her access rights to her children were being suspended until further notice.

It was incomprehensible, deplores her lawyer, because the mother always respected the hygiene measures in place and even underwent a COVID-19 screening test (negative) to demonstrate her good faith and the absence of risks.

Nothing worked. At best, the lawyer points out, the DPJ authorized telephone contact between the mother and the two children.

Surprisingly, when her son had to be rushed to hospital in April due to a rare condition he suffers from, the mother was allowed to accompany him to the emergency room, but was forced to take him back to the foster home that evening, despite his condition and despite the fact that he was asking for her.

The mother's lawyer is concerned about this intransigence in the interpretation of the ministerial decree, which nevertheless stipulates that the DPJ must allow the execution of decisions as soon as they can be applied without representing a threat to the health of the population.

A question of justice for children

How does the DPJ determine that contacts pose a risk to the health of the population? Does it investigate to ensure this?

"Well no, that's exactly it," laments Ms. Assouline. "In all the cases that the lawyer handles, visitation rights have been suspended without further ado. There has been no investigation."

"In fact, the only case where a mother was able to regain her access rights was when I asked the court to intervene and, as if by magic, the DPJ met with the mother, the workers asked her questions and they immediately restored the access rights."

Ms. Valérie Assouline will therefore apply to the Superior Court on May 4 to invalidate the ministerial decree in place since March 19.

If the court upholds the order, the lawyer is asking that Quebec establish a protocol with clear guidelines regarding the applicable criteria in order to assess the risk to public health of allowing physical access between children and their parents.

"The development and psychological and emotional balance of children depend on it," she sums up.

See the article: https://www.droit-inc.com/article26661-La-DPJ-abuse-t-elle-de-la-notion-de-pandemie