25 March 2026
The Durban High Court has terminated an abusive father’s parental rights and responsibilities after he made no attempt to see his teenage son for a decade. Archive photo: Nomfundo Xolo.
An abusive father who has not seen his teenage son for a decade and has not contributed a cent towards his child’s living costs has had his parental rights and responsibilities terminated by the Durban High Court.
The ruling means that the teen’s mother no longer needs the father’s consent to apply for a passport or sign off on any legal matters. However, the mother is still entitled to approach the Maintenance Court, because under South African the legal obligation to support a child is based on blood relation and financial dependency, not on parental contact or rights.
To protect the child’s identity, the parties cannot be named.
The couple married in community of property in 2006 and separated in 2012, following a marriage characterised by verbal, physical and emotional abuse, usually sparked by allegations that the mother was cheating.
Following fertility treatment, she gave birth to twins in 2009, one of whom was severely disabled.
After the couple separated, access to the twins was regulated through various court orders, guided by reports from the Family Advocate and a curator appointed by the court to safeguard the interests of the children. This was after the father had refused to administer essential medication and oxygen to the disabled child while in his care.
That child died in 2018. The surviving twin, identified as S in the judgment, last saw his father at the funeral - his only contact since 2016.
There were also allegations that the father had physically abused S, including hitting him and attempting to “smother” him with a pillow.
The parents divorced in 2025. The matter came before Judge Jacqui Henriques to determine the issues of parental rights and the division of the joint estate. The mother wanted a forfeiture order.
The father, however, said he had always contributed to the joint estate and had even taken full responsibility for his mother-in-law, buying groceries for her. But this turned out to be a lie. It emerged that he was using her pension money to buy groceries, said the judge.
Under cross-examination, the father admitted he had made no attempt to see his children for eight to nine years “because it was a waste of time”.
In her most recent report, curator advocate Sian Clarence said she had interviewed S in May 2025, then in Grade 11 and about to turn 16. S had said he’d been selected to play cricket in England, and there was “bursary potential”, but he knew his father would probably not give permission for him to get a passport. His father had previously “flatly refused” to give such consent when S had been invited to go on a cruise.
S told Clarence that he did not want to see his father, as he had never contributed to his life and had no bond with him.
Judge Henriques said that while the mother had been an impressive witness, the father had been dishonest, changing his evidence when “caught out”.
“Most notably the transcript will reveal that none of the mother’s evidence of abuse was disputed by (the father). In fact, I gained the impression that he falsely accused her of having affairs to justify his abusive behaviour,” the judge said.
Judge Henriques said Clarence had sought an order for the termination of the father’s rights and responsibilities, something which could be granted in cases of financial and emotional neglect and physical abuse.
She said the father had both verbally and physically abused S from a very young age. S now wanted nothing further to do with him, “and his voice must be heard”.
His mother needed to be in a position to make major decisions on his behalf without the father’s consent.
In addition, the father had not financially contributed to his children’s upbringing since 2016.
“As upper guardian of the minor child, I do not believe it is in S’s interests to be forced to maintain contact or a relationship with someone who has made no emotional or financial effort to be in his life,” Judge Henriques said.
Regarding the joint estate, she said the mother had been the sole contributor to her pension and had been responsible for the upkeep of the property.
She ordered that the father forfeit any claim to her pension, retirement annuity and property and that he sign all transfer documents, failing which the Sheriff would be authorised to do so.
She said, given the father’s intransigence, he must pay the costs of the application.
