Matthew Porcher, now 23, worked for a company that operates homes for troubled youth in Ministry of Children and Family Development care
A former youth support worker for the Ministry of Children and Family Development has been found guilty of sexual assault and sexual touching after developing an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old boy in government care.
Recommended Videos
Matthew Arlen Porcher, now 23, worked for the ministry from the fall of 2021 until April 2022 as a resident support worker with IDM Youth Services, a company that operates homes for troubled youth who can’t be accommodated in foster homes.
The complainant, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, lived in two different homes in the Greater Victoria area and Porcher worked with him for several months.
After a time, the company became concerned that Porcher had an “unprofessional relationship” with the youth and decided they should be separated for a time.
On April 24, 2022, Porcher was given time to tell the youth about the separation.
“After some drama involving the complainant’s brother, which lasted into the early morning of April 25, the accused told the residential support worker on shift … that she could go home and he would put the complainant to bed,” the judgment says.
Porcher gave the youth a back massage, as he had done several times in the past. Once he thought the boy was asleep, he touched his genitals and buttocks. The boy “says that after enduring this out of fear for what he estimates to be 20 minutes, he pretended to wake up again.” Porcher tried to get him to go back to sleep, but he wouldn’t, and Porcher left.
Porcher, who testified in his own defence, denied the incident happened. But he admitted giving massages, sending the boy text messages from his personal phone, and meeting him at a local park on several occasions, all of which are against company policy.
Because of the boy’s age, the Crown did not have to prove a lack of consent, only that the touching happened.
Porcher, who was about 20 or 21 years old while working at the homes, wanted to be a police officer and had attended the Justice Institute after graduating from high school.
His first encounter with the youth was during a shift when the youth had an altercation with another worker who pushed him against a door, injuring his back. Police were called and Porcher accompanied him to hospital for treatment.
The injury became a pretext for Porcher’s repeated back massages, court heard, though Porcher hid them from other staff because it was against the rules.
Porcher met the youth in his car twice at a park. Though the visits meant the youth had to break curfew, Porcher claimed the meetings were needed because the boy threatened suicide if he couldn’t see him.
A perceived lack of boundaries led to the order to separate the youth from Porcher, which Porcher was supposed to explain on the night of the allegations. After an altercation involving the youth’s half-brother, who was supposed to be at another youth home, Porcher stayed late and failed to return to the home where he was supposed to be working that night.
Days later, another worker at the home found the youth sleeping on a couch in the living room instead of his bedroom and asked if he was OK. That worker talked to the youth, then filed an incident report saying the youth told her “a staff member went into his bedroom and touched him inappropriately within the past 12 days.”
The youth would not identify the accused, saying “he is scared to confront this individual and does not want to make it a big deal.” But he asked to have a camera put in his room to track who comes in and out.
When Porcher read the youth’s file, he found the incident report and sent the youth a Snapchat message that read: “I just read the (report). Let’s talk later. I didn’t do that for me … you were having a really tough day. Thought it would be what you wanted. It was really tough to do that but I thought it might help you pal.”
The youth took a picture of the messages with another phone and showed them to a staff member.
Porcher tried to call the youth repeatedly that evening and asked to talk on FaceTime. He later told the youth he was finished work and asked him to come to a park to talk. The youth didn’t respond and Porcher sent increasingly pleading messages asking to meet.
The youth reached out to a former IDM employee asking what to do and was told to call police. He responded to one last text from Porcher with “Ok” so Porcher would stay at the park until police arrived.
An investigation was launched and the charges were later filed against Porcher.
The judge ruled that Porcher’s explanations of his multiple breaches of the company’s rules “were inconsistent and implausible …
“The accused clearly knew he was putting not only his job, but his future as a police officer, at risk by messaging the complainant and especially by meeting him in his car after curfew in a park. He hid his behaviour.”
Ultimately, the judge decided Porcher “is a practised liar and manipulator” and that he was motivated by sexual interest.
By contrast, the judge viewed the youth’s testimony as largely consistent and found no evidence that he had a motive to lie.