Geisha Kow­lessar

The death of Chrys­tal Boodoo-Ram­soomair has tak­en on a new di­men­sion as a cus­tody bat­tle brews be­tween fam­i­ly mem­bers for the dead woman's three chil­dren-Chris­t­ian, five, 19-month-old Sarah and ba­by Danielle.Boodoo-Ram­soomair, 29, died on March 4 at San Fer­nan­do Gen­er­al Hos­pi­tal, af­ter un­der­go­ing a third Cae­sare­an sec­tion.In­ter­viewed yes­ter­day, two rel­a­tives squared off, blam­ing each oth­er for not tak­ing prop­er care and at­ten­tion of the chil­dren.A close fe­male rel­a­tive of Boodoo-Ram­soomair plead­ed that her name not be pub­lished, as she be­lieved that her life would be in dan­ger.

The fe­male rel­a­tive, who paint­ed a grim pic­ture of the dead woman's life, called for the im­me­di­ate in­ter­ven­tion of so­cial work­ers, charg­ing that the wel­fare of the chil­dren was at stake.The rel­a­tive said "un­der no cir­cum­stances" would she al­low Boodoo-Ram­soomair's daugh­ters to "be­come young ladies" while in their fa­ther's care."I would re­al­ly hate for that to hap­pen," she said."I want the chil­dren to be with me, es­pe­cial­ly the girls...that's re­al­ly both­er­ing me."The chil­dren don't even vis­it us any more, we have to send things for them." The rel­a­tive said even be­fore Boodoo-Ram­soomair got mar­ried, she re­peat­ed­ly warned her of trou­bles ahead, in­clud­ing un­hap­pi­ness and fi­nan­cial hard­ship.

"Chrys­tal was such a pret­ty girl and she had so many bet­ter of­fers, it's re­al­ly a shame she didn't take an­oth­er of­fer of mar­riage," she said."Maybe God saw it fit to take her home be­cause she en­dured a lot, she was un­hap­py, she was like a slave...even with her big bel­ly she had to do all kind of house­work."The rel­a­tive said af­ter the mar­riage, Boodoo-Ram­soomair was de­nied vis­its to her par­ents' home and barred from go­ing out with her chil­dren.Many times, she added, Boodoo-Ram­soomair's fam­i­ly would send clothes, mon­ey and tins of ba­by for­mu­la to en­sure the chil­dren were prop­er­ly main­tained.She said when the chil­dren vis­it­ed their grand­par­ents' home, they ap­peared thin and sad.

"When we ask them what they eat, they would say on­ly bread and cheese or rice and corned beef," the rel­a­tive said.She al­so claimed the chil­dren's health was at risk as there was a dog which was present in the house with the chil­dren.The dog, the rel­a­tive al­leged, was in­fest­ed with fleas.In­sist­ing that she want­ed the chil­dren to en­joy a good life, the rel­a­tive said: "We want the chil­dren to eat and live prop­er­ly...that is what their moth­er would have want­ed."We don't want any­one to mis­treat them in any­way," she said."Now that their moth­er is dead, we will do every­thing to en­sure that the chil­dren are well tak­en care of and hap­py."

But fa­ther of the chil­dren, Lorne Ram­soomair, shot back at these claims in a sub­se­quent in­ter­view yes­ter­day, say­ing he in­tend­ed to "do any­thing and every­thing" to en­sure that he had full cus­tody of the chil­dren.He said he had no in­ten­tion of giv­ing up his chil­dren to any­one, not even to the rel­a­tives of his dead wife."Of course, I would nev­er give them up...Ab­solute­ly not, they are my chil­dren, I love them and they are re­main­ing with me," he said."I would do every­thing and any­thing for my chil­dren...I would not al­low them to be thrown in an en­vi­ron­ment that is un­fit."

Deny­ing claims that he was un­em­ployed and there­fore could not fi­nan­cial­ly pro­vide for his chil­dren, Ram­soomair said he was a busi­ness­man with his own com­pa­ny, CLC Es­tate Com­pa­ny.He al­so de­nied al­le­ga­tions that he was an un­fit fa­ther, and said he nev­er drank al­co­hol or used ob­scene lan­guage.While ad­mit­ting that he smoked cig­a­rettes, Ram­soomair said he would do so in his back­yard, out of view of his chil­dren."I smoke, but my chil­dren have nev­er seen me smoke...I am cut­ting back on the amount of cig­a­rettes that I smoke," he said."As for the dog, it is a guard dog, a pure bred Ger­man shep­herd which is well cared for."

Say­ing he had no prob­lem with the grand­par­ents vis­it­ing the chil­dren, Ram­soomair, how­ev­er, said he would not leave them at the grand­par­ents' home."The chil­dren can go to their grand­par­ents home any­time, but I would not leave them there, know­ing the kinds of things that go on in that house," he said."When my wife was alive, she used to car­ry them there and I was se­cure in the knowl­edge that she would pro­tect them from that kind of en­vi­ron­ment."De­scrib­ing his mar­riage as "per­fect," Ram­soomair said when he told his fam­i­ly he was get­ting mar­ried, he al­so told them he was "res­cu­ing Chrys­tal and want­ed to pro­vide a bet­ter life for her."

Asked how he had been cop­ing with the care of the chil­dren, Ram­soomair said he hired three "at­ten­dants," one who worked dur­ing the night, an­oth­er who worked dur­ing the day and an­oth­er on week­ends.Say­ing he had no in­ten­tion of leav­ing the coun­try with his chil­dren, Ram­soomair added: "This is my home, but noth­ing will ever pre­vent me from tak­ing care of my chil­dren."Ac­cord­ing to Ram­soomair, the pain of los­ing his wife still lin­gered and he had no in­ten­tion of re­mar­ry­ing."I am still mar­ried to Chrys­tal, whether she is here or not...I am speak­ing out be­cause of the love and lega­cy to my wife and chil­dren."Both par­ties said yes­ter­day that they were pre­pared to fight for cus­tody for the chil­dren in court.Ram­soomair said he had re­tained a lawyer and had al­ready put mea­sures in place in the event the mat­ter end­ed up in court.