Social worker rocks the cradle for doting mom
Mother’s living conditions ‘not good enough for her baby’
ON THE sunny Tuesday morning of May 23, Emily* was playing with her one-year-old son, Joe*. She was singing him his favourite song as he played in the sand and licked a lollipop. Emily always treasured mornings like this.
But today was different. A large, official-looking van pulled up outside Emily’s Vrededorp, Joburg, flat. A woman got out and entered her home, identifying herself as Whitney Hendricks, a social worker.
She looked around and took detailed notes on what she observed. Emily was in shock, and confused as to why Hendricks was in her home, assessing her living conditions. After she had finished, Hendricks told Emily that she had made a decision: Joe could no longer live here.
Hendricks then picked up the little boy, who had started to cry, and took him into the van.
One Friday night two years ago, 19-year-old Emily went to a bar. She wasn’t in the mood to go out, but her best friend Mary* wanted to, so after some begging Emily relented. Along with Ben*, one of Emily’s friends, and Logan*, one of Mary’s friends, they went to a nightclub in Melville. Logan bought everyone drinks. Emily took a sip of hers. She woke the next morning in her bed at home, wearing all of her clothes except her underwear. She’d been hungover before, but nothing like this. She was dizzy and could not remember anything other than that last sip.
When she called Mary to find out what had happened, she was told that she had slept with Logan. Not only could Emily remember this but it didn’t make sense. She’d been dating her boyfriend for four years. She’d never slept with anyone else.
Both Mary and Ben have independently confirmed Emily’s account of the events. Ben said that after Emily had that first drink, she became deeply intoxicated. “I’ve known her for ever and she’s never been like that.” Emily and her boyfriend independently told The Star that months later Logan openly admitted to spiking her drink, and taunted Emily’s boyfriend about it.
But in the weeks following, Emily still felt physically wrong. Also, her period didn’t come.
Initially, Emily wanted an abortion, a choice made by many survivors of rape. But she was desperate for a child. When she was 10 years old, her uncle raped her repeatedly, she said, until her parents found out and they moved away. She also said when she was walking home one night years ago, a pair of men attempted to rob her, and ended up violently raping her. Her doctor said the physical damage done made it unlikely she would be able to have a child.
“God gave me a miracle,” Emily said. “He gave me Joe. I love that little boy so much. I didn’t think I’d be able to handle the pain of having him, but it changed me. It made me a better person. It made me a mother.”
Once she decided to keep the child, she told her boyfriend, which she said destroyed their relationship. She said she didn’t report the incident to the police because she was so overwhelmed.
“I was 19 having a baby. I’d just lost my boyfriend of four years, I had no one,” Emily said.
Once Emily realized she was having Logan’s child, her friends pushed her to tell him, saying he had a right to know. Emily disagreed, but told Logan she did not want him in her or her child’s life. The next day, he came to her house.
“He said he would fight me in court every single day of my life for the baby,” Emily said.
A few months after her son was born, a DNA test showed that Logan was indeed the father. Emily then asked him for maintenance, but Logan didn’t pay, other than for two months out of the 15 of that Joe has been alive.
She said Logan came by her house often, repeatedly physically attacking her and her family. Her father wanted to go to the police, but Emily was terrified of the legal system getting involved.
Emily is poor. The quality of life in Vrededorp is better than in the informal settlements, but the community has suffered deeply from drug abuse, and many struggle to make ends meet.
Logan is not poor. He lives in a mansion in Roodepoort and has a steady job with plenty of disposable income to pay for anything a child could need.
Emily didn’t want the legal system involved because she was terrified a court might think Logan’s home would be a better place for a child to grow up.
On May 23, the Family Court in Joburg heard testimony from Hendricks and concluded Joe would live with Logan for three months while Emily’s living conditions were investigated. Emily had no lawyer, and said she was told there were none available.
A few weeks later, she started the application process for legal aid. But that Tuesday, she just had to go home.
“When we got out of court, and I was holding him for the last time, it was so hard to let go,” Emily said. “When they took him from me, my father took my hand and just started walking and he was holding me so I wouldn’t look back at Logan leaving with my son, but I couldn’t help but look back and see my son and he was crying ‘mommy, mommy’ and I couldn’t do anything.”
Emily had not spent a single night away from Joe before that Tuesday. She has yet to find the right words to describe the feeling of waking up in the middle of the night and remembering all over again that her baby is not there.
When Hendricks told Emily she was recommending that Joe be removed from her care, she presented Emily with a form that listed all situations where the government can remove a child. The reason Hendricks relied on was the 10th on the list: “May be at risk if returned to the custody of the parent, guardian or care-giver of the child as there is reason to believe that he or she will live in or be exposed to circumstances which may seriously harm the physical, mental or social wellbeing of the child.”
When Hendricks handed her the form to sign before removing Joe, Emily refused, saying that what the social worker had written was not true. She was a good mother.
But she did not know that refusing to sign the form forfeited her right to any documentation about her case, so even if she goes to court or the social worker’s office, she is legally not allowed to see the documents that show why her child was taken.
While Emily and The Star were unable to view the documents, Hendricks explained her decision-making process. She said Logan had gone to court and reported substance abuse in Emily’s home. Hendricks was assigned to investigate.
“There were no drugs found in the home and we did not drug test anyone,” Hendricks said. “The reason for removal was about the environment. The house was very untidy, there were cigarette butts on floor, the cupboards were open, there were no rails on the stairs, and the room where the child was sleeping had a dirty diaper. It was unhygienic. And the mother’s appearance was untidy, she hadn’t bathed. She didn’t seen very present when I talked to her, and I thought she looked like she might be on drugs.”
Emily’s father pointed out that perhaps his daughter did not seem fully present because she had just been informed that her baby was being removed. He also said he was in the process of building a railing for the stairs, as Joe had only recently taken his first steps.
More than a week after removing Joe, Hendricks had yet to drug-test Emily or anyone else in the family, saying she had been busy with other cases.
“I have a plan with Emily that includes parenting classes and random drug tests but it’ll take time,” Hendricks said. She called Emily to schedule a drug test immediately after this interview.
She also gave a glowing review of Logan’s living environment.
“He’s renting a large house now, and he’s planning on moving to an even bigger one,” Hendricks said. “What immediately stood out to me was how neat and tidy it was. It also had no stairs.”
Hassina Vally, director of the Johannesburg Institute for Social Services, said the decision comes down to “who is the better option to look after the child, based on the child’s best interest”. She also added that social workers do not need evidence to remove a child from his mother’s custody.
In response to a question on whether the father would still have custody rights if he had raped the mother, both Hendricks and Vally said he would most certainly not.
The day Joe was taken away, every resident in Emily’s neighbourhood left their apartment and gathered in the street, unsure of what to do. One of Emily’s neighbours, Thanya Billings, said: “I know this girl, and this community knows this girl. She lives for her child. I’ve never seen a young girl anywhere here that’s loved their child and been a mother to their child the way this girl has been.”
As Billings seethed with rage, another neighbour expressed sorrow and determination. Nola Saunders said, “These people, they messed with the wrong community this time.”
Logan’s grandfather also lives in Vrededorp. He stood in the street alongside the rest of the community. “She’s a good mother. She loves her baby.”
Vrededorp is not the fanciest neighbourhood in Joburg but it is materially better than Emily’s previous living conditions. She grew up in a shack in Claremont. “We’ve worked for this,” said *Jack, Emily’s brother. “This is our first house… you’re telling me this isn’t good enough?”
Emily’s mother, *Melissa, said while Logan might be able to get Joe a better school or healthier food, some things were more important. “It’s not about just the money, it’s about the love and the caring you give your child.”
He said he would fight me in court every single day for the baby They messed with the wrong community this time