A Senegalese mother of three was accused of burning her kids to death, in protest against her husband’s right to have full custody over the kids.
Read details in the story below by www.mirror.com:
“A mother allegedly locked her three daughters in a shed and burned them alive while her husband was forced to listen at the end of a phone.
It’s claimed Thioro Mbow phoned her husband on his mobile and said: “Listen to their screams…” as his three precious children perished in the flames.
Husband Hellmut Ulin, 38, a foreman on a building site 12 miles away, listened in horror as his African wife allegedly told him: “I can hear their screams but I will do nothing to save them.
“You’d better hurry but you will be too late to rescue them. They won’t survive.”
The 35-year-old wife, who had earlier received a legal letter from her husband’s lawyer demanding custody of the children, went on: “I will never surrender my children to you.”
The girls’ father jumped into his car and raced back to his home in Lennik, a small town near Brussels, Belgium, while phoning his sister who lives nearby to hurry round to the house.
But it was too late to save his daughters Omy, two, Abbygail, four, and Madyson, six.
All he found were their charred and lifeless bodies with their mother standing near the still smoking garden shed where it’s claimed she calmly told him: “Ten minutes of screaming and then it was all over.”
I blame the evil nature of the Belgian System that authorizes lawyers to send such a letter to an isolated and vulnerable young African mother telling her that “Her children will be taken away” – not because she is a bad mother – but because the husband who is Belgian and white can win them through a White Belgian system, using Belgian white Social Workers and Belgian White Judges.
Why was the letter sent to the mother directly so that she snapped? Because she had no legal representation?
Just to say that here in UK the Belgian lawyer and husband will also be charged. If someone jumps out of the window because of a nasty e-mail or text you send them, the law will hold you responsible for your actions.
If you gonna send someone a message, THINK ABOUT WHAT EFFECT YOUR MESSAGE MIGHT HAVE ON THE OTHER PERSON.
No I disagree. Nothing but madness, inhumane and un African, more so unSenegalese explains this heinous crime.
@Babs: More details, father says “I WANTED TO GIVE HER A FRIGHT”!
She had just received a letter from Ulin’s lawyer demanding custody of the three girls.
“I had the letter sent by a court bailiff. I wanted to give her a fright,” the father later said.
As an advisor to an African Community Association, I have stopped many “Initial” Child Protection Meetings in their tracks by helping GOOD parents prepare their formal submissions (Social Workers don’t even tell parents that parents have a statutory right to submit WRITTEN submissions which MUST be considered at the meeting!!)
UK President of the Family Court TODAY, rejecting Council bid to take a child away from father (mother in jail for drugs):-
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges)  EWFC 11
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 17 February 2015
B e f o r e :
SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
Between: DARLINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL Applicant – and – M
Mr Crispin Oliver (instructed by the local authority) for the applicant (local authority)
Mr Martin Todd (instructed by Freeman Johnson) for the second respondent (father)
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division :
1. I have before me two applications by Darlington Borough Council, the first, issued on 16 September 2014, for a care order in relation to a little boy, A, who was born on 11 January 2014, the second, issued on 14 November 2014, for a placement order. Various aspects of the case have caused me great concern and, unhappily, require to be explored in some detail.
2. In the event I have come to the clear conclusion that both applications should be dismissed. A should be returned to the care of his father (the mother does not put herself forward as a carer for A and supports the father’s position).
3. There was no dispute as to the legal principles I have to apply.
4. It is for the local authority to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts upon which it seeks to rely. It is for the local authority, since it is seeking to have A adopted, to establish that “nothing else will do”: see In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria)  UKSC 33,  1 WLR 1911,  2 FLR 1075, and Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s 47(5))  EWCA Civ 1146,  1 FLR 1035. See also Re R (A Child)  EWCA Civ 1625. As Baroness Hale of Richmond said in In re B, para 198:
“the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short, where nothing else will do.”
This echoes what the Strasbourg court said in Y v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 33,  2 FLR 332, para 134:
“family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing. However, where the maintenance of family ties would harm the child’s health and development, a parent is not entitled under article 8 to insist that such ties be maintained.”
I have three sad thoughts for three little children and the loss of three innocent lives.
How do those closest deal with such tragedy…?
Lawyers….my God. I know all about Lawyers.