Parole Board rejects Granby girl’s father’s request for release
Posted April 25, 2023 10:43 am.
Last Updated April 25, 2023 10:49 am.
Warning: This story contains details of child abuse
The father of the Granby girl – who was killed due to abuse at the hands of her dad and stepmother – will remain behind bars. The Parole Board refused not only to grant him parole, but also day parole in a halfway house.
The 34-year-old man will not be able to return to the Board until next November. The individual, whose identity cannot be disclosed in order to protect another surviving child, was sentenced to four years in prison in January 2022 after pleading guilty to one count of false imprisonment, thus escaping three other charges including criminal negligence causing death.
“The Commission finds that you are still unable to explain the violence you chose to deploy against your daughter,” the decision released Monday reads.
“You understand that the decisions you made at the time of the events were irrational and unacceptable, but are unable to go further in your thinking. The Commission believes it is essential that you further explore the origin of this violence,” it continues.
RELATED
Family of Granby girl suing youth protection & school service centre
Father of Granby girl sentenced to four years
Stepmother of slain Granby girl appeals verdict & sentence
The seven-year-old girl died in April 2019 the day after she was discovered by police officers while completely wrapped in tape. The father of the girl had first put her under restraint in this way after she had run away during the night to take refuge at a neighbor’s house. He then left for work in the morning and it was his wife, who was convicted of murder without premeditation, who wrapped her completely in tape, including over her face, because she had partially freed herself.
The commissioners added 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 her restraints on and go to work. You must succeed in understanding how you were able to achieve such emotional detachment.”
The Board’s decision goes against the recommendation of the case management team, which agreed with granting day parole in a halfway house. Most of the observations reported by the workers since he has been incarcerated are positive. For example, on the psychological side, it is noted that the “risk of violent recidivism is evaluated at a low-moderate level” and that this risk “seems to be manageable in the context of day parole”. Also, his cooperation and motivation in the face of interventions in the detention facility is acknowledged, as is the absence of a disciplinary report or security intervention.
“You acknowledge your responsibility for the actions you are accused of. Your remorse and regret for the death of your daughter are sincere,” the letter reads.
Despite this, the Commission recalls “the nature and seriousness of your crime, when it is marked by great psychological and instrumental violence, and this, against a vulnerable person that you should have protected. It is also concerning that this violence was deployed over a long period of time and that you were unable to stop acting or to seek the help you clearly needed.”
“It is also disturbing that your spouse, at the time of the incident, had already taken abusive actions toward your daughter and that you continued to be willfully blind to this for your own emotional need. Your responsibility in the tragic consequences that we know is undeniable”.
The 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 your desire to look good prevented you from asking for the help you really needed, at the right time”, the Commissioners point out, adding that the man had shown reluctance, in the detention facility, to change sectors “because you find change difficult and it seemed difficult to leave the people you had known in this unit. (…) The Commission sees this as a manifestation of your emotional dependence; again, out of insecurity and fear of being alone, you had difficulty trusting the assessment of the people around you and making the logical decision that was required.”
The commissioners call this emotional dependency a “significant risk”: “You failed to demonstrate that you had the tools to cope well. It is not enough to say that you don’t want a spouse, that you want to take care of yourself before you get back into a relationship and therefore you will not be at risk. The Commission believes that your prevention plan is magical thinking.”
In its conclusion, the Commission is clear: “At this point in your sentence, the Commission does not feel that it is yet appropriate to allow you to return to society. You have not integrated all the required notions that could justify an early release. Therefore, you need to continue your work of reflection and application of the tools in real time.”
The girl’s paternal grandmother had appeared at the Board hearing to request that her son not be released.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French April 24, 2023.
