Youth support worker found guilty of sexually assaulting B.C. boy in government care

The courthouse in Victoria is shown in this file photo (CTV News)

Warning: This story contains disturbing details.

A former youth support worker has been convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in B.C. government care – an incident that followed months of secret hangouts and shirtless massages that were in clear violation of his employer's policies.

Matthew Arlen Porcher was working for IDM Youth Services, which operates a number of group homes on Vancouver Island, when the assault happened in the early morning hours of April 25, 2022, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision posted online last week.

The victim said Porcher, now 23, took him to his bedroom at a Victoria-area home following an emotionally difficult day, then, believing the boy had fallen asleep, proceeded to touch his penis, buttocks and testicles.

"The complainant says that after enduring this out of fear for what he estimates to be 20 minutes, he pretended to wake up again," Justice Gareth Morley wrote in his decision.

"The accused, according to the complainant’s evidence, tried to get him to go back to sleep, but he would not."

The victim spoke with another support worker about what happened the next day, beginning a chain of events that would eventually lead to Porcher’s arrest – and him being found guilty of touching for a sexual purpose and sexual assault.

While Porcher denied the allegations, the judge found his testimony “inconsistent” and “self-serving,” particularly when he was trying to explain a series of text messages he sent the victim after learning the incident had been reported to his employer.

“Holy shit,” he wrote. “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.”

Rules in place to prevent exploitation

As a support worker, Porcher was tasked with helping young group home residents navigate their daily lives – making them meals, helping them get to school on time, taking them to appointments, and putting them to bed.

The court heard Porcher began working for IDM in September 2021, and met the victim that fall while covering a shift at Metchosin House. The boy needed to be taken to hospital for a back injury that night, and Porcher accompanied him.

Porcher applied for a job at Metchosin House less than a month later, and was hired to do two or three shifts per week there while working at other properties operated by IDM.

During that time, he began giving the teenager back massages in the boy’s bedroom, purportedly to help with his back injury, according to the decision.

“The complainant’s shirt would be off during all or at least most of these massages. The accused’s testimony is that he would massage the complainant’s lower back a few inches above the belt,” Morley wrote.

“The accused knew these back massages were against IDM policy. He hid them from other staff members, except perhaps those he believed to be sympathetic to him.”

The court heard IDM Youth Services has several rules in place for the specific purpose of avoiding sexual exploitation of vulnerable youth in care – including a ban on touching them, with a limited exception for reciprocating hugs.

The rules also bar support workers from being in contact with the youth outside of work, including over social media, but the court heard Porcher not only exchanged text and Snapchat messages with the victim “regularly” prior to the assault, but had met with him in his car after curfew in parking lots on multiple occasions.

Eventually, a coworker grew concerned about Porcher’s lack of boundaries and reported his behaviour to a supervisor.

Mandatory period of separation

Porcher’s employer ordered that he stop working with the victim for at least three months, but allowed him two hours to meet with the teenager on April 24 to explain the need for their separation.

“When time was up, the complainant did not want the accused to go,” Morley wrote. “He started crying. The accused decided to stay, contrary to his supervisor’s instructions.”

The victim’s older brother later came over, argued with the boy and ultimately assaulted him, leading to a police response that lasted late into the night.

The court heard Porcher stayed throughout the turmoil, then brought the boy to his bedroom around 2 a.m. on April 25.

Gorley noted the victim was initially reluctant to come forward about the assault. He only reported the incident after a support worker saw him sleeping on a living room couch the next day and asked why he wasn't in bed.

Even then, the boy only stated that he had been touched inappropriately at some point over the last several days, and refused to disclose which employee was involved.

"He is scared to confront this individual and does not want to make it a big deal," reads the incident report that was filed following that conversation. "He requested for staff to put a camera on his room door to track who comes in and out."

Porcher found the incident report after checking the teenager's file during his next shift, on what was supposed to be the first day of his mandatory separation.

The court heard Porcher attempted to call the victim 11 times that day, and asked him via text to meet in a park. When the boy did not show up or respond to his messages, Porcher continued texting.

"I really want to see you. This is going to make it worse. I’m literally losing my shit right now," he wrote at one point.

"I will let you come punch me in the face … I'm so sorry. This hurts me so bad. I'm sorry it hurt you."

When the victim asked another support worker what he should, he was told to text back "OK" – suggesting he would be coming to the park – then report Porcher to the RCMP.

Officers found him in the park shortly after.

Accused's version of events ‘contradictory’

In his testimony, Porcher maintained that his relationship with the victim was purely supportive, and that when he broke his employer’s rules, he did so for the sake of the teenager's well-being.

He told the court he only accessed the boy's file on April 25 out of concern, because of the difficult evening with his brother, and that he subsequently reached out to inquire about which employee had sexually assaulted him.

Morley found that explanation inconsistent with the contents of Porcher’s messages.

Porcher’s various attempts to explain his words – including a claim that “I didn’t do that for me” was in reference to their employer-ordered separation, not a sexual assault – were found to be “contradictory” and unconvincing by the judge.

"The accused has demonstrably lied to the court repeatedly," Morley said.

"I am persuaded he is a practised liar and manipulator. I therefore cannot give his testimony denying the alleged assault any weight at all. I not only do not believe it, I know not to believe it, and I reject it as not capable of giving rise to a reasonable doubt."