Africa-Press – South-Africa. A Gauteng woman who refused to allow her children to spend time with their father has been sentenced to a month in prison for contempt of court.
The one-month sentence was, however, suspended on a condition she immediately complies with the court order.
According to a judgment by the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, the woman failed to disclose to her former husband her children’s physical address and had refused him access to the children for a week.
In fact, she kept the children out of school for that week.
The woman had also refused to allow her children to communicate with their father over the phone each day at 18:00. This resulted in him approaching the court on an urgent basis.
Judge LR Adams said in a judgment that the woman had painted the man as an “uncaring father”.
She had also accused him of posing a threat to the physical and mental well-being of the children and according to her, should not be left alone with them.
“These allegations and accusations by the [mother] are, however, belied by a number of factors, notably, at some point during the divorce settlement discussions, the respondent was quite happy to agree to a shared residency regime, which is wholly inconsistent with her allegations of abuse; and the evidence of the nanny … who confirmed that the applicant was a loving father.”
A witness also testified the father was not abusive towards the mother although they would argue.
“She [the witness] further testified that she had never witnessed any abuse by the [father] against the children; that the [father] would never hurt the children [and] that he treated all of the children, including [the woman’s child from a previous relationship], the same.
“That he would take and fetch them from school, that the children had asked her to call their father; that she had no problems staying with the applicant; that he was not abusive towards her and was not rude to her; and that she would completely contradict the allegations made by the respondent to the contrary.
“Her evidence was also to the effect that she would have no difficulty to go and look after the children whilst they are in the care of their father, the applicant, and when they are staying with him,” read the judgment.
Adams said he “understood” the mother to contend her non-compliance was not mala fide.
However, the woman believed if she were to comply with the court order, she would be placing the children, whose interest is paramount, in mortal danger, he added.
“In my view, the [mother] has not presented credible evidence in support of her aforesaid claim – far from it. Her version, in that regard, lacks credibility.
“In any event, the defences raised by the respondent to the contempt application appear to be misdirected. The point is simply that there is in place a court order, which should be complied with,” Adams said.
“If one is unhappy with a court order, the right approach to be adopted is to apply for a rescission of such [an] order. And, until that order is set aside, it should be complied with in accordance with the doctrine of the rule of law.”
The woman was ordered to pay costs.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
