False Statements, Deception, and Concealed Evidence Alleged Toward DPJ
Modified Article:
Three kids, preschool or early primary school age, had their rights violated by the Youth Protection Department (DPJ) in Montreal, according to three judges who evaluated their case, as they were removed from their foster home due to baseless allegations of sexual abuse. The father was later acquitted.
Emily Johnson, Investigative Reporter, Our Media Outlet
In a unique move, the foster family, who had cared for the children since birth, filed a civil lawsuit against the DPJ of the CIUSSS de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal and Santé Québec. Two of the children returned home "traumatized" and "devastated" after months apart, while the third never returned.
The lives of these kids will be forever affected.
Mylène Leclerc, one of the lawyers for the foster family, states that she can only provide general comments, as the case has yet to be heard.
The story spans over five years, with all documents relating to the case being kept sealed by the court until Le Journal obtained their release.
"A Tunnel Vision"
On October 16, 2019, three children residing in a Montreal foster home since birth were urgently removed following an allegation that the foster father had sexually assaulted a former resident six years earlier. The accused was criminally cleared in 2021.
Although the DPJ can't be criticized for swiftly responding to a report, it's crucial to adhere to legal obligations.
"Mylène Leclerc, one of the lawyers for the foster family," criticized the DPJ's treatment of the children following their removal.
One child was told she would never see her mother again, the foster family alleges in an initial filing at the Montreal courthouse. A judge learned in a ruling that the girl had nightly crying spells asking for "her mom," to the point of hyperventilating. The DPJ asserted that this was a "healthy way to mourn after a separation," which the judge dismissed.
Following a chance encounter between the girl and her former foster mother in a store, the DPJ even accused the new family who had the girl in their care of orchestrating the event, and threatened to remove her from her new home if the incident happened again.
Perjury and Evidence Suppression
But what particularly shocked the judges was the DPJ's strategies to prevent the children from returning to their foster mother after the urgency had passed.
According to evidence, the mother made multiple attempts to communicate with the Youth Protection Services (YPS), but YPS refused to speak to her or sanction a meeting. Eager to reclaim the children, she had her partner's agreement to leave the family home despite believing in his innocence. They lived apart for more than two years.
However, social workers repeatedly appeared in court to argue against the children returning home. When two of the three children were ordered to be reunited with their mother after several months of separation, YPS continued seeking "proof to support their theory," as Judge François Ste-Marie wrote in a judgement.
In 2021, a social worker took an oath that she had good reasons to believe the foster father was visiting the family home despite a court contact ban, which proved false. Based on the "credible" testimonies of one of the children, the same assertion had been made twice. The children were removed from their home and placed in emergency care once again.
In court, the intervenor failed to mention the fact that the girl had said the opposite during two other meetings, including one with the police. She did not mention these meetings until forced to do so during the hearing due to documents deposited by the CDPDJ.
This omission, according to the judge, was a "deliberate choice." He also noted that the interveners asked suggestive questions to the little girl.
In a written conversation between two agents, deposited as evidence, one can read: "I know exactly how we should approach the evaluation and I know how to obtain the necessary proof."
The magistrate lost faith in the competence of YPS to the point of requesting that the child's file be transferred to another administrative region. "The court cannot trust the validity and accuracy of the information provided by YPS in this specific case. If the evidence does not support their position, YPS will reject it. These are clear indications that YPS has a tunnel vision," he wrote.
In a related case, Judge Peggy Warolin, who heard the case for another child, accused an intervenor of having "lied" under oath during a hearing to decide whether the child would return to the foster family or not. The judge ruled that the child should go back home against the recommendation of the Youth Protection Department.
"Eliminating her family"
Judge Anne-Claire Perron, who investigated the case for the third child who never returned to his original family, held similar views in determining whether the boy's rights had been violated.
It would be difficult under the circumstances to trust the Youth Protection Department. [...] [The foster mother] was treated as though she were responsible for the allegations of sexual assault and that [her partner] had been found guilty, which was not the case.
Excerpt from one of Judge Anne-Claire Perron's judgements
Judge Perron expressed her concern that the YPS had not facilitated contact between the child and the woman who had been his "psychological mother since birth" for two years, which was in the child's best interest. In the meantime, the latter had established in his new environment and was not reunited with his former family.
"He experienced a major relational loss. [...] YPS did not help the child mourn this family or maintain a significant bond. The court questions whether YPS wanted to eliminate this woman, as well as the other members of this family, from his life," wrote the judge.
The CIUSSS of West Island Montreal declined to comment on the case due to privacy concerns and ongoing judicial process.
Other cases
An internal report obtained by Le Journal in October 2024 revealed that interveners from DPJ in Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Quebec had filed fraudulent reports to the court. A review of the files of 140 children aged six and younger placed in foster care discovered that many children had been placed too quickly in mixed banks for adoption after an incomplete evaluation of their file.
In 2023, the DPJ of Estrie began the adoption process for disconnected triplets without notifying their biological parents and while their mother was able to care for them. The organization falsely informed the court that there were few studies on the influence of separation on triplets. The adoption process was halted just days later by a judge.
Legal Implications:Under Canada's Criminal Code, perjury (Section 131) and public mischief (Section 140) may apply to intentional false statements under oath and intentionally misleading investigations.[1] The suppression of evidence or the disregard of court orders could lead to charges such as obstruction of justice or contempt of court, though they are not explicitly mentioned in the search results.
Potential Impacts on Children:The consequences of such behavior could include:
- The erosion of trust: Children might face prolonged instability due to undermined judicial oversight.
- Delayed permanency: Violations of court orders could delay custody resolutions, magnifying trauma.
- Compromised safety: Disregarded evidence might expose children to hazardous environments.
Although specific allegations against DPJ-related cases are not covered in the provided sources, the Barry Bonds case[2] suggests that similar scrutiny may apply to institutional actors when demonstrated false testimony is put forth. For accurate details on Montreal DPJ cases, one must consult court records or provincial oversight reports.
- The Montreal foster family, represented by lawyer Mylène Leclerc, criticized the Department of Youth Protection (DPJ) for its treatment of children who were removed from their home based on baseless allegations.
- In one instance, a social worker from the DPJ was found to have made false statements under oath about the foster father visiting the family home despite a court contact ban.
- A judge in another case accused an intervenor of lying under oath during a hearing, leading to the child being returned to the foster family against the recommendation of the Youth Protection Department.
- A report obtained in 2024 revealed that interveners from the DPJ in Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Quebec had filed fraudulent reports to the court, leading to the quick placement of children in mixed banks for adoption after an incomplete evaluation of their file.
