Child’s sjambok bruise sparks court battle

AN OTHONGATHI (Tongaat) father who allegedly denied his estranged wife time with their young son after the boy was “accidentally” bruised with a sjambok, could see himself behind bars for contempt.

This is if he fails to comply with a high court order that allows for shared custody of his 7-year-old son.

The child’s mother, who is currently in a divorce battle with her husband, sought urgent relief after she was allegedly denied time with her son.

By law, the parties cannot be named.

The mother first approached the court in February last year and was granted an order that allowed full parental responsibilities and joint custody.

In her founding affidavit before the Durban High Court, she claimed she was physically and emotionally abused and decided to leave the relationship and her home in January 2016. This left her little to no time with her son.

“As I fled the marital home for my safety, I was not allowed to take my son along. The respondent (the father) took the opportunity to allow me limited contact with my son.”

She said she was forced to seek interim relief to gain legal rights to her son.

She said her husband had complied with the order for three months, up until her father had “accidentally” hit her son with a sjambok.

She explained that her son had gotten in the way of the grandfather hitting their pit bull dog.

The boy sustained a bruise to his buttock and this caught the attention of his father who in turn preferred a charge of child neglect at Tongaat SAPS and a complaint at Child Welfare.

While these charges fell through in court, the mother claimed that her husband had refused to allow her son to return to her home.

“He insisted that my son does not want to come home on the allegation that he is afraid of my father and I.”

Through their lawyers, Atisha Ghela and Rajendra Nathalal, the battle continued from July to December to no avail, according to the mother.

She said she was eventually asked to see the Family Advocate and Family Counsellor after an enquiry was made into the residence and contact arrangements of the son.

A first enquiry was conducted in November 2016 with the second conducted in October 2017.

In January 2018, she said, she received a report from both parties.

According to Family Advocate Sandhya Singh’s report, the father and mother were interviewed together while the child was interviewed separately. Her assessment found that the child was not harmed by the mother and is not a source of risk to the child.

“In fact the child advised that the defendant (father) often hits him. The incident of the maternal grandfather hitting the child is a once-off incident. There is no substantial reason for the child to be removed from an environment where the grandfather is present,” the report stated.

Singh said she is, however, concerned that the child is being negatively influenced against the mother and alienated from her.

She suggested that both parent see a physiologist or social worker to help with co-parenting.

Family Counsellor Johanna van der Westhuizen found that the child was mimicking adult behaviour and negative towards his mother.

She believed that the delay in finalisation of the matter will negatively impact on the child.

“He is at the stage of development where he is settled at school and in his routine. Constant changes in this respect have a negative impact on the child.”

In terms of the recent court order, the previous order of joint custody is to be followed as interim relief.

This includes overnight visits, shared time on special occasions and daily contact with the child.

The order stated that should the father fail to act accordingly, the court sheriff is authorised to ensure compliance.

The father has until May 3 to show cause as to why the order should not be made final.

Failure to do so would result in being guilty of contempt.

The father has since filed a notice of opposition and has until April 18 to serve his answering affidavit.