Prosecutors seek seven years for father in Ghent daycare baby death trial

Requested sentences

Prosecutors asked the Ghent correctional court on Thursday, 12 November 2026, for seven years in prison for Roxan V., the father of the former operator of the daycare 't Sloeberhuisje in Mariakerke, near Ghent. They also want him placed at the disposal of the sentence enforcement court. For Davina V., the former operator, they requested two years in prison. Against the Flemish agency Opgroeien they asked for a fine, leaving the amount to the court.

Roxan V. (father)7

Davina V. (former operator)2

Roxan V. (father)

7 years

Davina V. (former operator)

2 years

Data from the article text

The death and the investigation

The girl was taken to the emergency department of Ghent University Hospital on 16 February 2022, after a call from the daycare in Mariakerke. She died on 18 February 2022. The hospital found a serious head injury in circumstances that were unclear and alerted prosecutors. Roxan V. was then remanded in custody on a charge of voluntary assault causing death without intent to kill. Davina V. was first charged with involuntary manslaughter and released under conditions, then arrested again in early June 2022 for negligence, in light of new evidence from the investigation.

The autopsy found shaken baby syndrome. Roxan V. admitted shaking the girl, but said it lasted only a moment and that he did not intend to kill her.

Dispute over the charge

Prosecutors in East Flanders had argued that the case was voluntary homicide, meaning the man knew or should have known that shaking a baby could cause death, and that it should be tried by an assize jury. A year earlier, the chamber of indictments in Ghent decided he should appear before the correctional court for assault causing death. Davina V. and Opgroeien face charges of involuntary manslaughter and, for three children, involuntary assault. Roxan V. and Davina V. are also accused of negligence in the care of 19 children.

The defendant's account

At the opening session, Roxan V. addressed the court directly and described his actions in the following words.

“I only shook the child slightly. A small movement is already enough to cause damage. I was neither angry nor agitated.”

He told the court that he shook the girl violently only after she had lost consciousness, because he wanted to resuscitate her, and that he had believed she was suffering from respiratory failure. The court also questioned him about a separate injury on the left side of the girl's skull. No verdict has been reported yet.