A landmark ruling from a high court in Valencia set a stark precedent in a case that shocked families and communities in Europe. The Supreme Court handed down a verdict that carries a heavy prison term for a Belgian father found guilty of murdering his two children, aged three and a half, alongside a parallel but separate fate for the mother, who was subjected to psychiatric hospitalization after being found to have participated in the offenses and to suffer from mental illness. The sentence together establishes a long maximum term for both parents in a single, tragic matter that unfolded on March 13, 2019, at a Godella residence where the family resided.
In its Criminal Chamber, the Supreme Court rejected the defense strategy offered by the parents and affirmed the sentence issued by the Valencian Community High Court of Justice, which itself upheld the prior conviction from the Valencian State Court. The appellate review confirmed that the prosecution demonstrated the essential elements required to convict both parents, reinforcing the gravity of the offenses and the profound impact on the victims and the broader community. [Citation: Supreme Court, Valencia, 2019–2023; official adjudication notes]
Previously, a jury identified the couple as the perpetrators during the trial, with reports indicating the children were subjected to repeated blows after a swimming activity at the Godella cottage. The proceedings demanded a careful scrutiny of the family context and the alleged participation of both parents in the sequence of events that culminated in the fatalities. The case thus raised questions about coercive and abusive dynamics within the home and how those factors could contribute to the deaths of vulnerable minors. [Citation: Judicial records, jury deliberations]
As the case progressed, the court drew evidence of a troubling pattern within the household. The narrative portrayed a setting where children endured serious harm within a climate of control and intimidation, creating a real danger and lasting harm for the victims. The severity of the accusations prompted decisive action by the judiciary to ensure accountability and safeguard the welfare of minors involved. [Citation: Court findings, protective measures]
Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined that lengthy custodial sentences were the appropriate response, reflecting both the seriousness of the crimes and the intent behind them. The judgment also considered concerns about how the mother’s mental health might influence the overall assessment of the actions by both defendants, ruling that illness did not absolve responsibility nor negate the existence of a joint plan to harm the children. The court emphasized that the evidence supported a finding of joint participation and the requisite mental state to sustain the charges against both parents. [Citation: Supreme Court opinion, section on joint culpability]
The final ruling underscored the judiciary’s commitment to protecting minors and ensuring a robust, unapologetic response to acts of severe abuse and murder. It asserted that the justice system must act decisively to deliver justice for the victims, regardless of individual circumstances, and to reinforce public confidence in the legal process. The decision stands as a clear message: when minors are harmed, the state will pursue accountability with firmness and clarity. [Citation: Judicial pronouncements on child protection]