The High Court in Johannesburg has decided in favor of a mother, officially terminating her husband’s parental responsibilities and rights concerning their two children.
The couple, who married on December 12, 2009, has two minor children born in 2012 and 2015. According to the mother, they separated in 2016 when her husband informed her of his intention to leave. Since that time, he has not actively participated in the lives of the children.
During the proceedings, the court learned that the father’s last contact with the children occurred in 2016 at a Family Advocate office meeting. Despite recommendations for re-bonding therapy, he did not attend any of the arranged sessions, even though the mother negotiated a reduced rate for the therapy. He subsequently canceled all appointments, including those for supervised visits.
The mother also indicated that the father had been unreliable in meeting his maintenance obligations and had refused to sign documents necessary for the children to obtain passports, which would enable them to participate in sports and travel opportunities.
A “Voice of the Child” report from a social worker revealed that the children lacked any emotional attachment to their father. The report concluded that ending his parental rights would be in their best interests. The children explicitly expressed their desire not to have contact with him; the eldest refused to keep any photographs of him, while the youngest stated he did not remember his father at all.
In making its determination, the court referenced Section 28(1)(a) of the Children’s Act, which allows for the termination or suspension of parental rights when it serves the best interests of the child. Section 28(4) requires consideration of factors such as the parent’s commitment, the nature of 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, demonstrate a commitment to their well-being, or provide necessary financial and emotional support. The judge further noted that the father’s refusal to consent for the children’s passports limited 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 from unnecessary emotional distress and to the security of knowing that those responsible for their upbringing are consistently present for them.”
The court ordered the termination of the father’s parental responsibilities and rights, appointing the mother as the sole guardian of the children.
