The High Court in Johannesburg has ruled in favor of a mother, terminating her husband’s parental responsibilities and rights over their two children.
The couple, who married on December 12, 2009, had two children, born in 2012 and 2015. According to the mother, they separated in 2016 when the father informed her he was leaving them. Since that time, he has played no active role in the children’s lives.
The court heard that the father’s last contact with the children was in 2016 during a meeting at the Family Advocate’s office. Despite recommendations for re-bonding therapy, the father failed to attend any scheduled sessions, even after the mother arranged for a reduced rate. He later canceled all appointments, including a supervised contact session.
The mother also testified that the father had been inconsistent with his maintenance obligations and had refused to sign documents needed for the children to obtain passports, despite their involvement in sports and potential opportunities to travel abroad.
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 rights would be in their best interests. The children explicitly stated they did not want contact with him, with the eldest refusing to keep any photographs, and the youngest saying he did not even remember him.
In its ruling, 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 best interests of the child. Section 28(4) requires the court to consider 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 or emotional support. The judge also noted that the father’s refusal to consent to the children’s passports further limited their opportunities and development.
“The law and the facts compel the court to act in the best interests of the minor children,” Judge 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 there for them.”
The court ordered the termination of the father’s parental responsibilities and rights to guardianship and care. The mother was declared the sole guardian of the children.
