Court terminates relationship between deadbeat dad and his children

The high court in Johannesburg has ruled in favour of a mother (the applicant) and terminated the parental responsibilities and rights of her husband (the respondent) in respect of their two children.

The parties were married on December 12 2009 and had two minor children, the oldest born in 2012 and the youngest in 2015.

According to the mother, the parties separated in 2016 when her partner informed her that he was leaving them. Since then, the man played no active role in the lives of the minor children.

The man last had contact with the children in 2016 during an appointment at the office of the Family Advocate.

The court heard that despite a recommendation from the Family Advocate for re-bonding therapy, the man did not attend any scheduled sessions, even after the mother arranged and negotiated a reduced rate.

The husband subsequently cancelled all appointments, including a supervised contact session.

The mother said the father had been inconsistent in complying with his maintenance obligations and had refused to sign documentation for the children to obtain passports, despite them being avid sportsmen with opportunities to travel overseas.

A Voice of the Child report compiled by a social worker concluded that the children had no emotional attachment to the respondent and that terminating his rights and responsibilities would be in their best interests.

The children had explicitly stated that they do not wish to have any contact with their father, the oldest even refusing to keep any photographs of him, and the youngest stating that he does not remember him.

In deterring the matter, the court referred to section 28(1)(a) of the Children’s Act that provides that a court may, on application, terminate or suspend any or all the parental responsibilities and rights that a parent has in respect of a child.

In considering such an application, section 28(4) requires the court to assess the best interests of the child, the relationship between the child and the parent whose rights are being challenged, the degree of commitment shown by the parent towards the child, and any other factor relevant to the determination of the child’s welfare.

Judge du Plessis highlighted that the father had failed to maintain a personal relationship with the children, failed to show commitment to the children’s wellbeing, and to provide financial and emotional support to them.

Du Plessis said the man had himself to blame for his children not wanting a relationship with him.

It was further added that the man’s failure to consent for the minor children to obtain passports further cements the fact that by restricting their future opportunities and facilitating their development (which includes, in this case, supporting their education and travel), confirms the lack of support.

The court concluded that the law and the facts compel it to act in the best interests of the minor children. “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.”

In the circumstances, the court ordered that the man’s parental responsibilities and rights of guardianship and care in respect of the minor children be terminated.

Their mother was declared the sole holder of responsibilities and rights of guardianship in respect of the children.