C’est une aventure qui nous vient d’au-delà des Bermudes, une information que vient de rapporter le quotidien The Melbourne Age (Mark Russel). Elle peut être sèchement résumée : une mère de famille australienne âgée de 40 ans vivant dans la banlieue de Melbourne a été condamnée lundi 27 juillet 2015 à six ans de prison pour avoir conçu un enfant avec un enfant âgé de quatorze ans – un ami de sa propre fille, dont elle était tombée amoureuse deux ans auparavant. Il semble que sa fille était initialement amoureuse de ce garçon. Il est acquis que l’accusée (mère de trois enfants) a eu plus de vingt rapports sexuels non protégés avec le jeune garçon (y compris dans sa voiture et en camping).
Atypique cette relation a duré deux ans et a conduit, comme on pouvait raisonnablement s’y attendre, à une grossesse. Une petite fille est née en mai 2014. Les parents du jeune garçon ayant appris (tardivement) la relation ont (aussitôt) porté plainte. Un test ADN a confirmé que leur jeune enfant était bien le père biologique de la petite fille.
«Vous n’avez pas reconnu que vos sentiments pour le garçon étaient complètement inappropriés», a déclaré la juge Jane Patrick. Vous avez entamé et poursuivi une relation sexuelle illégale». L’accusée devra purger plus de la moitié de sa peine avant de pouvoir prétendre à une libération conditionnelle. L’Agence France Presse ne nous dit pas tout. Le quotidien australien donne ici des précisions qui n’ont guère besoin d’être traduites :
“A County Court judge, who cannot be named, said on Monday the woman had behaved in an abhorrent and shocking way when abusing the vulnerable boy for her own emotional and physical needs. The judge said the woman’s moral culpability was very high given she was supposed to have been looking after the boy for his mother when she had to work early, and had been in a position of trust and friendship (…)
The woman, 40, gave birth to a daughter in May last year when her victim was 14. The judge said the woman had taken the boy’s adolescence away from him and while he clearly loved his daughter, he was having difficulties adjusting to fatherhood and what had happened to him. She said the boy was angry and confused, his relationship with his mother had deteriorated and he should not have to deal with these issues at such a young age. The baby girl is now being cared for by the boy and his mother but the Department of Human Services is expected to take her for weekly prison visits to see the woman.
Woman became jealous
The judge said the victim’s mother was doing her best to support her son and his baby daughter despite feeling betrayed. The woman had been married and living in suburban Melbourne with her three children when her daughter became friends with the victim when they were both 11.
The woman became jealous of her daughter’s relationship with the victim and began taking him to and from school when she was having marital problems. The woman, who separated from her husband in January 2013, first had unprotected sex with the boy when he was 12 and she was 36. It was the boy’s first sexual experience and he later told police they had unprotected sex more than 20 times over the next two years, including in her car and when camping in the backyard. The woman, who pleaded guilty to one count of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16 between April 2012 and May 2014, claimed she was ashamed, embarrassed and guilt-ridden at what she had done.
Boy sexually maturing
She told psychologist Professor James Ogloff she was sexually naive and did not realise the boy was old enough to father a child. The woman said she was attracted to the boy because he was sexually maturing but denied being attracted to children. Professor Ogloff found the woman had not been acting in a predatory way or been driven by a deviant sexual desire, but instead had allowed her feelings of care and nurturing for the boy to develop into a sexual relationship. The psychologist said the woman had been a supportive and caring parent with no prior convictions who failed to recognise her feelings for the boy were completely inappropriate.
Professor Ogloff did not believe the woman suffered from a paedophilic disorder and was unlikely to reoffend.“
Où sont, dans un tel cas de figure, les frontières entre le normal et le pathologique ? La prison est-elle la réponse à ces étranges passions ?