The father of the martyred girl from Granby remains behind bars.
The parole board denied him not only parole, but also day parole in a halfway house.
The 34-year-old will not be able to return to the Commission before next November. The individual, whose identity cannot be revealed in order to protect another surviving child, was sentenced to four years in prison in January 2022 after pleading guilty to a charge of forcible confinement, thus escaping three other charges including that of criminal negligence causing death.
Incomplete reflection
“The Commission finds that you are still unable to explain the violence you have chosen to use against your daughter,” reads the decision made public on Monday.
“You understand that the decisions you made at the time of the events were ‘irrational’ and unacceptable, but you are unable to reflect further. The Commission believes it is essential that you further explore the origin of this violence.
The seven-year-old girl had died in April 2019 the day after she was found by police while completely wrapped in duct tape. The girl’s father had first put her under restraint in this way after she ran away during the night to take refuge with a neighbour. He then left for work in the morning and it was his spouse, convicted of premeditated murder, who completely wrapped her in tape, including on her face, because she had partially freed herself.
emotional detachment
On this subject, the commissioners add that “you will have to try to understand why the next morning, when you yourself were rested and the victim was calm, you chose to leave him his restraints and go to work. You must succeed in understanding how you were able to achieve such emotional detachment. »
The Commission’s decision thus goes against the recommendation of the case management team (CMT), which agreed with the granting of day parole in a halfway house. Moreover, most of the findings reported by the workers since he was imprisoned are positive. For example, on the psychological side, we note that the “risk of violent recidivism is assessed at a low-moderate level” and that this risk “seems manageable in the context of day parole”. Also, we recognize his collaboration and his motivation with regard to interventions in the detention facility, as well as the absence of a disciplinary report or security intervention.
“You recognize your responsibility in the actions of which you are accused. According to your CGE, your remorse and regret over the death of your daughter is sincere,” it wrote.
“A great violence”
Despite everything, the Commission recalls “the nature and seriousness of your offence, when it is imbued with great psychological and instrumental violence, and this, against a vulnerable person whom you should have protected. It is also worrying to note that this violence unfolded over a long period of time and that you were unable to stop acting or seek the help you clearly needed. »
“It is also disturbing to note that your partner, at the time of the events, had already committed violent acts towards your daughter and that you continued to be willfully blind about it, for your own emotional need. . Your responsibility for the tragic consequences that we know is undeniable, ”we continue.
Affective dependance
Moreover, this question of emotional dependence comes up a few times in the Commission’s report, which recalls that at the time of the events, “you were well surrounded by professionals, but that your desire to look good prevented you from asking the help you really needed, at the right time”, point out the commissioners, who add that the man had expressed reluctance, in the detention facility, to change sector “because you find it difficult to live with the changes and that t seemed difficult to leave the people you had known in this unit. […] The Commission sees it as a manifestation of your emotional dependence; once again, out of insecurity and fear of finding yourself alone, you had difficulty relying on the assessment of the professionals around you and making the logical decision that was necessary. »
The commissioners describe this emotional dependence as a “significant risk”: “You have not been able to demonstrate that you have the tools to deal with it properly. It is not enough to say that you don’t want a spouse, that you want to take care of yourself before resuming a relationship and that therefore you will not find yourself at risk. The Commission considers your prevention plan to be wishful thinking. »
In its conclusion, the Commission is clear: “Thus, at this stage of your sentence, the Commission considers that it is not yet appropriate to allow you a return to society. You have not integrated all the required concepts that could justify an early release. You must therefore continue your work of reflection and application of the tools in real time. »
The girl’s paternal grandmother had come to the Commission hearing to demand that her son not be released.