Prosecutor Seeks 20 Years for Father in Jairon Trial

Belgian prosecutors asked the Antwerp Crown Court on Monday to sentence the father of 14-year-old Jairon to 20 years in prison, and to hand three-year terms to four others convicted of withholding food and care from the boy, VRT NWS reported. The demand came on the final day of a trial that has gripped Belgium for more than four years, and after the jury retired to decide the sentence.

Rennlhij M. (47) was found guilty of murder on Friday after nearly nine hours of deliberation. Four housemates and members of the same religious community were convicted of withholding food and care. A sixth defendant was acquitted.

A Death Kept Hidden for Weeks

Jairon died in the night of 3 to 4 January 2022 at his father’s villa in the town of Turnhout, after being severely ill for weeks. His body was not found until 25 February 2022 — roughly eight weeks later — after his mother, Danica, filed a police report out of concern that she had not heard from her son in two months.

The father and five other adults all lived in the house at the time. They told investigators the boy had fallen ill and that they believed he would recover with healthy food, a painkiller and rest. No medical help was ever called. After Jairon’s death, according to testimony, they believed God would resurrect him. His mother and brothers were kept from learning what had happened.

Because the body was in an advanced state of decomposition, the precise cause of death was never established — a fact that shaped the entire legal proceedings.

The Sentencing Arguments

On Monday, prosecutor Sofie Adé framed the father’s culpability in stark terms. “He died because the father persisted in his choice not to call for life-saving help,” she said.

The maximum penalty for murder in Belgium is life imprisonment. Adé argued that the father’s case did not involve the criminal intent seen in other murder trials and that there was “a beginning of remorse and insight,” making 20 years an appropriate sentence instead.

That position reflects an unusual feature of the case. As VRT NWS noted, the prosecution itself had argued during the trial that there was no evidence of murder and sought convictions only for withholding food and care from a vulnerable person. It was the civil parties — Jairon’s family — who pressed for a murder conviction. The jury ultimately sided with the family.

For the four other convicted defendants, Adé sought three years’ effective imprisonment, the maximum for withholding food and care. “Through their failure to act, they contributed to the worsening of Jairon’s condition,” she said. “They had the chance to act differently.” She added that she weighed heavily their conduct after the death: “None of them felt called to inform the authorities or Jairon’s mother.”

Defence lawyer Fatima Ahmad, representing the father, pleaded for a five-year sentence. “I realise that sounds limited relative to the qualification of murder,” she told the jury. “You can fully recognise the seriousness of the facts and still say that life or a long prison term is not appropriate.”

Ahmad argued that a five-year term “expresses social disapproval but still leaves room to later take a place in society.” She also invoked the father’s loss: “Jairon was also his son. He must live on without him and with the judgment that he himself was responsible for his death.” Lawyers for the other defendants asked for no prison time, seeking a suspension or an alternative sentence. After the pleadings, the defendants were given the last word but added nothing.

Why the Jury Found Murder

The verdict turned on the father’s decision not to seek help. When the jury delivered its guilt findings on Friday, the presiding judge read out the reasoning, according to VRT NWS: “If Jairon had received medical help a few hours before his death, it would likely have been life-saving. But his father did not intervene. He chose to resort to a blind faith in God. In that way he himself accepted the death of his son.”

The jury held that the four others gave Jairon too little food and care, but that this was not the cause of death; the father’s failure to act was. The sixth defendant was acquitted because he was not aware of Jairon’s condition.

Throughout the proceedings, the father acknowledged responsibility even as he contested the charge of murder. “I’m not here for an acquittal, but to take responsibility. I cannot make it right,” he said. On the first day of trial, he told the court he had been haunted by the same question for years: “I’ve lost my little boy. I am the responsible one. For four years I’ve been walking around with the question: should I not have gone to a doctor?”

An Unresolved Question: Ketamine

One of the most contested threads of the case concerns ketamine, which was found in a hair sample from Jairon, indicating exposure on multiple occasions in roughly the six months before his death.

As VRT NWS reported, toxicologist Jan Tytgat said the most likely interpretation was low-dose exposure at several moments, and that he could not say whether it had been deliberately administered. A toxicologist appointed by the family, Daniëlle Borrey, argued that Jairon’s atypical symptoms from December — vomiting, dizziness, difficulty speaking and cramps — were consistent with ketamine intoxication, suggesting higher doses in his final month. Forensic pathologist Werner Jacobs countered that this could not be scientifically proven and that the symptoms fit many other conditions.

The prosecution did not adopt the poisoning theory, noting that only small amounts were found, that the timing was unclear, and that experts concluded Jairon did not die from a toxic dose. The defendants denied ever giving him the substance, saying they had never heard of it.

A Community, and a Legal Battle

The six adult residents — three men and three women, predominantly Dutch nationals with Antillean or Surinamese roots — rented the villa together and described themselves as one family united by faith. Their community was a variant of the Pentecostal movement. Jairon’s father had previously led a church community he founded himself and made the decisions within the household.

The legal path to Antwerp was itself contested. A lower court initially ruled the defendants should answer only for culpable neglect before a correctional court, where the maximum penalty is 10 years. In 2025, the Chamber of Indictment overruled that decision, sending the case to the Crown Court on a murder charge. The six defendants attended their trial as free people, returning home each evening.

At the heart of the case is a family still seeking answers. Jairon’s brothers testified that they were shielded from their dying sibling and were not told he had died — believing for weeks that he was alive and in a coma. “I no longer have a father,” the eldest said. His younger brother appealed directly to the accused to tell the truth: “That is the least you can give me.”

What’s Next

With the pleadings concluded, the jury has retired to deliberate on sentencing. It must decide whether to follow the prosecution’s demand of 20 years for the father and three years for the four others, or to accept the defence’s call for lighter or alternative penalties. A verdict is expected in the coming days.

Regardless of the outcome, the case has raised difficult questions about religious isolation, the duty to protect children, and how Belgian law distinguishes between deliberate killing and fatal neglect. For Jairon’s family, who waited more than four years for the courtroom to reach this point, the sentence will close one chapter — but not the lingering question of how a 14-year-old was allowed to die in a house full of adults who could have called for help.