A Johannesburg father took the mother of his child to court after she limited his contact with their daughter because he rekindled his relationship with his girlfriend.
The parties were never married and had a child, K, during their relationship, who is now 9 years old.
They separated in May 2018 and have managed to navigate their co-parenting responsibilities.
In 2020, the father entered into a relationship with PW.
According to the mother, sometime during 2020, when K was visiting her father, PW subjected her to inappropriate behavior.
Allegedly, she put glue in K’s hair, cut K’s hair without the mother’s consent, pulled a blanket over K’s face and smothered her, picked her up and dropped her on purpose, and locked her in a cupboard under the stairs.
The father denied all the allegations; however, the mother prevented him from having contact with K.
In July 2020, the father ended his relationship with PW.
Subsequently, the mother allowed the father to have contact with K. However, in December 2022, the father rekindled his relationship with PW and only informed K’s mother in May 2023.
The mother’s reaction was swift and punitive. She insisted that the father could only have contact with K under her supervision and only for a few hours at a time. She said that while the father is involved with PW, his contact with K must be limited under supervision as she cannot expose K to any form of abuse.
Acting Judge Sarita Liebenberg said she was unable to find PW guilty of the acts she was accused of having committed.
“Whether the accusations are the products of an active imagination of a little girl or a misunderstood story, do not concern me. What does concern me is the well-being of a young child who is entitled to a close, loving, and supportive relationship with each of her parents,” said the judge.
Judge Liebenberg ruled that the father has a right to have K over the weekends as well as during school holidays.
However, the father must ensure that when K is under his care, she does not have contact with PW.
The judge clarified that the order should not be interpreted as a finding against PW regarding the abuse allegations.
Instead, the order seeks to pave the way for a peaceful co-parenting relationship between the parents.
IOL