Girl returned to parents despite fear of sex abuse

SARA MINOGUE

A 12-year-old girl will be reunited with her parents, now that a judge has ruled her savvy enough to handle a father who may have sexually abused her when she was a child.

The girl was apprehended by social services at age four, in October 1998, when it was discovered that she had gonorrhea — a sexually transmitted disease.

The disease was traced back to her adoptive father, identified only as M. U. in the ruling. He was charged, but acquitted two years later, because there was not enough evidence to prove the offense.

During the trial, however, the judge in that case found that M. U. was responsible for infecting the child with gonorrhea, due to “highly inappropriate behaviour.” M. U. had admitted to being naked in bed with the girl, though he insisted that his contact with her was not for sexual purposes.

Now 12, the girl has experienced several foster care placements, but maintains ties with her parents, and in particular, with her mother, L. O.

It was her mother who challenged the decision, made some six years after the child was apprehended, to place her permanently in the custody of the director of social services, a ward of the state.

After that order was made, in February 2004, the child was placed with L. O.’s sister, who lived nearby. Here the girl had contact with her mother, and was soon making regular visits and overnight weekend stays, where the mother was required to monitor any contact with the father, and where by all accounts, she did so.

Neither the judge nor the director of social services have doubts that L. O. is a devoted mother, who would care for the child, but concerns remain about M. U.

The director of social services applied for permanent custody of the girl after learning that M. U. was charged and convicted of three sexual offences, dating back to the early 1980s when he was between the age of 18 and 21, and involving a cousin of the girl, who was then between the ages of 10 and 14.

The permanent order, and the restrictions during family visits, had an effect on the child, who grew to resent the situation.

She began to spend more time with her parents than the rules allowed, which caused friction with her foster parents. The director — who remained responsible for her safety — resisted these visits, and ultimately moved her to a foster home in another community to put a stop to it.

The strong-willed girl was “devastated by this move,” notes Justice Robert Kilpatrick in his seven-page ruling.

She remained in the other community (which is not named to protect her identity) for six months, before she was returned to her aunt’s home last fall, after her mother had made the application to regain custody, and after promising to respect the rules on visiting.

That arrangement appears to have worked out so far.

In the ruling, Kilpatrick notes that both of the child’s parents are non-drinkers, the father holds a job, there is no violence in the home and they care for another small child.

The father consented, at the court’s suggestion, to a sex offender risk assessment. This found that, in spite of evidence of “sexual deviance in M. U.’s distant past,” he is not a pedophile.

The psychologist who assessed M. U. also noted that the man functions at the mental level of a 10-year-old, and that this may account for his “failure to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions,” and possibly for his inappropriate behaviour with the girl.

“It is highly unlikely that any professional, given M. U.’s history, could ever conclude there is no risk involved,” wrote Judge Kilpatrick.

However, the judge also considered the best interests of the child, who wants a relationship with her parents, and who, he said, “has now been coached on appropriate personal boundaries and inappropriate sexual touching.”

The judge said she understands these rules because she recently came forward to accuse another extended family member of inappropriate activity.

“This suggests that the child is more conscious of her physical integrity and that she is willing and able to report inappropriate touching by members of her family. While [the girl] remains vulnerable to sexual exploitation by adults, she is better able to protect herself than she was when she first came into care.”

Rather than leave the child in a situation she “learns to resent and hate,” Kilpatrick ruled that she return to the family home for one-year under several conditions.

Those include:

* counselling for M. U. in stress reduction/management, age appropriate sexuality, hygiene and parenting skills;
* the girl cannot be home alone with the father;
* the girl cannot be naked in the presence of the father, or vice versa;
* she will not be allowed into a bedroom or bed with the father;
* the director will be able to make scheduled and unscheduled visits to the home;
* the girl will receive counselling related to past assaults and to sexuality;
* the mother will report any violations;
* a social worker will have private visits with the girl if the director requires it;
* and the supervision order will be reviewed in four months.

“No plan is perfect,” notes Kilpatrick in the ruling.