The High Court in Johannesburg has ruled in favor of a mother, terminating the parental responsibilities and rights of her husband over their two children.
The couple married on December 12, 2009, and had two minor children, born in 2012 and 2015. According to the mother, they separated in 2016 when her husband informed her that he was leaving them. Since then, he played no active role in the children’s lives.
The court heard that the father last had contact with the children in 2016 during an appointment at the office of the Family Advocate. Despite recommendations for re-bonding therapy, he did not attend any scheduled sessions, even after the mother arranged and negotiated a reduced rate. He later canceled all appointments, including a supervised contact session.
The mother also stated that the father had been inconsistent in complying with maintenance obligations and had refused to sign documents for the children to obtain passports, despite their involvement in sports and opportunities to travel overseas.
A Voice of the Child report by a social worker found that the children had no emotional attachment to their father. The report concluded that terminating his parental responsibilities would be in their best interests. The children explicitly stated they did not wish to have contact with him, with the eldest refusing to keep any photographs and the youngest saying he did not remember him.
In reaching its decision, the court referred to Section 28(1)(a) of the Children’s Act, which allows for the termination or suspension of a parent’s responsibilities and rights if it is in the child’s best interests. Section 28(4) requires the court to consider factors such as the parent’s commitment, the parent-child relationship, and the child’s overall welfare.
Judge Du Plessis ruled that the father had failed to maintain a personal relationship with the children, show commitment to their well-being, or provide financial and emotional support. The judge added that the father’s refusal to consent to the children’s passports further restricted their opportunities and development.
“The law and the facts compel the court to act in the best interests of the minor children,” Du Plessis stated. “They are entitled to a future free of unnecessary emotional distress and to the security of knowing that those responsible for their upbringing are consistently there for them.”
The court ordered the termination of the father’s parental responsibilities and rights of guardianship and care. The mother was declared the sole guardian of the children.
Source: Linda Ikeji Blog
