Child in foster care allowed to exit SA

THANKS to the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, a five-year-old boy in foster care will be able to go on holiday next month with his new family to a seaside resort in Mozambique.

The foster parents turned to the court after the child’s biological parents refused to let their child travel to Mozambique. Their objections included that the child was too young to be exposed to a malaria-ridden country and could be exposed to Covid-19 there.

The head of social services also refused permission.

The foster parents told the court that they were invited to accompany their biological children and grandchildren to Mozambique on a holiday in June and they dearly wanted to take their foster child along.

Social services told the court that it had based its refusal on a note from the biological parents.

Apart from the fear that their child may get malaria and their fear that medical care in Mozambique was inadequate, they also voiced their concerns that their child might be kidnapped.

Social services argued that under the Children’s Act, it was the provincial head of the department and not the court who decided to permit a child in foster care’s departure to another country. The biological parents also needed to give their consent.

Judge Elmarie van der Schyff said the department failed to consider that Section 169 of the Children’s Act conferred the provincial head with a discretion that existed separate from the child’s guardian’s decision.

Even when the guardians of a child in foster care granted their consent, the provincial head was required to consider the request and provide written approval. In considering the request, the biological parents’ wishes were but one of the factors the provincial head must take into consideration.

Ultimately, the decision must be informed by the child’s best interests, she said.

“I am of the view that it is in the child’s best interests for this court to consider the relevant information and make the decision,” she said.

The judge added that while the biological parents feared their child might contract malaria and face other dangers, the child has been adequately cared for by the foster parents since 2019. She said malaria was also prevalent in other areas in South Africa. Visitors to the areas were aware that they must take special precautions.

While the judge said it would be beneficial for the child to partake in a family holiday, she frowned upon the suggestion of the biological parents that alternative arrangements be made for the child while the foster parents were away. She was “quite taken aback by this suggestion”.

“The minor, having been in the care of the applicants since the age of two years and some months, the suggestion of being left in the care of strangers, is unfounded,” she said.

“The sense of adventure associated with a vacation at Ponta de Ouro will provide an invaluable experience.”

Judge Van der Schyff added that while there was a responsibility on social services to be vigilant when confronted with the removal of a child from South Africa, each case must be considered on its own merits.