F v F (2024/114386) [2025] ZAGPJHC 174 (25 February 2025)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court considered whether terminating the respondent's parental responsibilities and rights (guardianship and care) was in the best interests of the minor children, given his complete absence from their lives for eight years, failure to maintain contact, provide financial support, and his admission of non-compliance with bonding efforts and maintenance obligations.
• The court evaluated the children's expressed wishes (no desire for contact), their lack of emotional attachment to the respondent, and their well-being under the applicant's sole care for eight years to determine if termination served their best interests under s 28(4) of the Children's Act.

Holdings

• The court terminates the respondent's parental responsibilities and rights, as he failed to maintain a relationship with the children and did not fulfill his obligations, in the best interests of the minor children. The respondent admitted to abandoning his responsibilities for nearly eight years and showed no commitment to reestablishing a bond.
• The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a party-and-party scale, with counsel's costs calculated under Scale A of Rule 67A of the Uniform Rules of Court.
• The applicant is authorized to handle all passport, visa, and identity document applications for the children without the respondent's consent or signature, including the right to consent to their removal from South Africa.
• The applicant is declared the sole holder of guardianship and care responsibilities for the children, including full decision-making authority in medical and educational matters, as well as the right to administer their property and make travel-related decisions without the respondent's consent.

Remedies

• The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a party and party scale, with counsel's costs calculated per Scale A of the Uniform Rules of Court.
• The applicant is declared the sole holder of guardianship responsibilities and rights in respect of BI and Br.
• The applicant is vested with sole decision-making powers for BI and Br's medical and educational needs.
• The applicant is authorized to apply for and renew BI and Br's passports unilaterally.
• The applicant is authorized to remove BI and Br from South Africa without the respondent's consent.
• The applicant may apply for BI and Br's identity documents when they turn 16 without the respondent's consent.
• The applicant is granted sole care responsibilities and rights for BI and Br.
• The applicant may apply for BI and Br's travel visas from foreign authorities without the respondent's consent.
• The respondent's parental responsibilities and rights of guardianship and care in respect of BI and Br are terminated under section 28(1)(a) of the Children's Act.

Legal Principles

Precedent Name

• GM v K
• S v M (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae)

Cited Statute

• Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act
• Children's Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• [14] ... the Voice of the Child report compiled by social worker Karien Keeve establishes that the minor children do not wish to have a relationship with the respondent and that terminating his parental responsibilities and rights would be in their best interests.
• [11] Section 28 of the Constitution makes it clear that the best interest of the child is paramount in every matter concerning them. This provides the framework in which all the provisions of the Children's Act should be interpreted, and s 7 of the Children's Act sets out the list of factors that courts must consider when determining what is in the best interest of the child.
• [21] ... the evidence before this Court shows that they have thrived under the applicant's care, and that they have, through their own voices, expressed a clear and consistent desire to move forward in life without the uncertainty of a relationship that has not been nurtured.