Concourt blow for child maintenance defaulter

THE HOME of a Gauteng man – named SS for court proceedings – can now be attached for defaulting in paying child maintenance and other bills.

In a damning child maintenance judgment delivered in the Constitutional Court yesterday, Justice Jody Kollapen dismissed the man’s application for leave to appeal.

He had sought to appeal a ruling of the high court in Pretoria that paved the way for the execution of his immovable property.

Acting Judge SL Magardie in the high court had ruled that the property could be attached because SS owed R306 550 for maintenance of a minor child he has with his ex-wife.

The ex-wife – named V-S for legal proceedings – claimed this amount in 2014, after returning to South Africa from the US.

She stayed in the country with the child for four years – from May 2010 to January 2014.

SS did not pay maintenance during that period, violating an order of the high court. The order was handed down after the divorce.

He was ordered to pay R2 500 a month as basic maintenance, which would increase annually.

SS would also be liable for 50% of the crèche fees and half the costs for necessities like textbooks, school uniforms, extramural activities and school outings.

The parents would also share medical costs. V-S maintained the R306 550 would cover all the costs she incurred while SS wasn’t paying maintenance.

The sheriff initially sought to attach the father’s movable assets, but found they were valued at less than the money he owed.

Justice Kollapen lambasted SS for also not complying with an order of the Constitutional Court that directed him to pay R150 000 and make monthly maintenance payments.

The court had directed him in August to comply with its order before it could hear his application. But he paid only R150 000 and didn’t make monthly payments.

Given this failure, Justice Kollapen said it wasn’t in the interests of justice to allow SS to ventilate his argument. “Under the circumstances, I conclude that on what is before us, there is no evidence that the applicant has remedied his conduct,” said Justice Kollapen.

He added that hearing SS’s oral submissions “would dilute the potency of the judicial authority and send a chilling message to litigants that orders of the court may be ignored, with no consequence”.

SS shocked the court by demanding a paternity test in October, seven years after the divorce. Two previous tests by independent pathologists showed with 99.9% certainty that he was the child’s father.

Said Justice Kollapen: “This raises, in the sharpest and most concerning of terms, the attitude of the applicant towards the minor child, rooted, as it appears to be, in a belief that the child is not his.

“Impressive as its powers are, no court can direct a parent to love and recognise a child, critical as that may be to the full development of a child. We can only hope that in the young life of the minor child, whose interests are the subject of this litigation, that transpires in the fullness of time.”