The KwaZulu-Natal High Court has ruled against a father in a divorce case marked by abuse, awarding full custody to the mother and terminating the father's parental rights.
Image: FILE
The KwaZulu-Natal High Court has ruled against a father in a divorce case marked by abuse, awarding full custody to the mother and terminating the father's parental rights.
He was also stripped of all financial benefits from the marriage including forfeiting any claim to the mother’s pension in the Government Employees Pension Fund, her retirement annuity, as well as the family home in Chatsworth.
In a ruling handed down by Judge Henriques, the court not only finalised the divorce but also awarded full parental rights and care of the child to the mother, while ordering the father to forfeit any claim to the couple’s joint estate, IOL reported.
The case, which began in 2013, was delayed by numerous factors, including changes in legal representation, the Covid-19 pandemic, and ongoing disputes between the parties.
The couple, who were married in community of property in 2006, separated in 2012 after what the court described as a troubled and abusive relationship. Their union produced twin boys, one of whom tragically died in 2018 following severe medical complications.
The mother, a police officer, testified extensively about repeated incidents of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse during the marriage. These included assaults, threats with a firearm, and humiliation in both public and private settings.
The court heard that the father had previously been convicted of offences including crimen injuria and assault, reinforcing what the judge accepted as a sustained pattern of abusive behaviour.
The father denied many of the allegations, instead accusing the mother of emotional instability and infidelity. However, the court found his version largely unconvincing, noting inconsistencies and a lack of supporting evidence.
Evidence presented by medical experts, social workers, and the family advocate painted a troubling picture of the father’s conduct. He was found to have failed to administer critical medication to his seriously ill child, ignored medical advice, including the use of oxygen therapy, demonstrated limited involvement in the child’s daily care, and used the children as leverage in disputes with the mother.
The court also noted that the father had not maintained contact with the surviving child for nearly a decade and had made no meaningful financial contribution to the child’s upbringing.
In contrast, the mother was found to have consistently prioritised the child’s wellbeing, ensuring proper medical care, emotional support, and stability.
In a decisive move, the judge terminated the father’s parental responsibilities and rights entirely. This means he no longer has any legal say in the child’s upbringing, care, or major life decisions.
The issue of maintenance was referred to a maintenance court, although the father had previously suggested he could only afford a nominal contribution due to unemployment.
The court also granted a forfeiture order, ruling that the father would not benefit from the joint estate.
This included forfeiting any claim to the mother’s pension in the Government Employees Pension Fund, her retirement annuity, as well as the family home in Chatsworth.
The court found that the father had made little to no contribution to the estate, while the mother had carried the financial burden throughout the marriage.
Judge Henriques took into account the father’s refusal to comply with court orders, lack of financial transparency, and his decision to abandon contact with his child rather than accept supervised visits.
In a further blow, the court ordered the father to pay the mother’s legal costs, including previously reserved costs, citing the protracted nature of the litigation and his conduct throughout the proceedings.