Father being refused contact to his child! What are his rights as a Father?

The concept of Family

Fam-i-ly. A three-syllable word, that means so much.  The concept of family is a very broad one and one that takes more than one form. There is the traditional form, and a more modern one. When you say “she is family”, you may be referring to your father’s cousin, a grandparent, or a niece. However, people most often referred to are those closest to you, referring to blood relations, for example, a parent or child. The most basic social unit of what a family comprises of – two parents and in most cases a child.
We are conveniently located in the Pinnacle Building, in the Cape Town CBD. Click here to call us on (021) 4243487 or send us an email.
However, the law now sees people as family who are not necessary married to each other in law, but who may be cohabiting as life partners, bringing a more modern concept to it. As the law recognises family relations, it therefore imposes certain rights, obligations, and certain restraints when it comes to family. For example, spouses have a legal obligation to maintain each other, and you may not marry your sibling. Another example is that of inheritance, even if you never knew you had a child, at your death, he or she would inherit from you if you die intestate, all just because, you are Fam-i-ly.

What is a father?

This article deals with the legal relationship between a biological father and a child. Not all men are blessed with being referred to as a father. In order to be a father, you have to be a male parent to a child. The child must have been born from you. And therefore, every child can only have one father. However, from the moment you became a father, the law imposed certain rights and responsibilities. These responsibilities will remain until you or your child’s demise. The scope of this article is not to stipulate what a good or bad father is. It is to outline what the responsibilities and rights of a father are towards his child.

What are the father’s rights towards his child?

This article is inspired by the fact that many fathers who are not in a marital, or romantic relationship with the mother of his child, are refused the rights to exercise his parental rights and responsibilities towards his child. In South Africa, we have the Children’s Act 38 (Act 38 of 2005), which came into effect on 1 April 2010. Here section 10 of the Act is of use. It defines parental responsibilities and rights, which includes the right to care for the child, to maintain contact with the child, to act as guardian of the child; and to contribute to the maintenance of the child. Fathers of children born out of wedlock does not automatically have rights towards their child. In order for you to form part of such a child’s life you need to fulfil the requirements of section 21 of the Act, which basically states:
  • at the time of the child’s birth, you are living with the mother in a permanent life-partnership; and
  • you contribute or have attempted in good faith to contribute to the child’s upbringing for a reasonable period;
  • you contribute or have attempted in good faith to contribute towards expenses in connection with the maintenance of the child for a reasonable period.
Many fathers would have been married to the mother. Others would have meaningfully partook in the child’s life from birth. Therefore, there should generally be no difference between a child born from a marriage and a child born outside of a marriage.  To take the statement further, it is possible for a father of a child born out of wedlock to be the primary care giver of the child, where the mother is only entitled to see the child at certain times and circumstances, or not at all.

What is meant by the terms care and contact?

The question is now posed, what is meant by this right of care and contact a father has towards his child? The Act provides a very holistic understanding of the concept of care. This includes providing the child with proper accommodation, guidance, protection and so on. Basically, to do, and provide the child with whatever is in his or her best interests. Contact, on the other hand entails maintaining a personal relationship with the child, visiting or being visited by him or her, and communication with the child in various forms.

Can the mother of your child deny you contact and care rights?

Now we deal with the issue of whether or not the mother of your child can arbitrary deny you from exercising your parental responsibilities and rights of care and contact. Should a mother feel that the father of her child should have limited rights and care to his child; in order for her to limit his rights, the mother should have a very good reason for doing so. Her reason should be motivated by what is in the child’s best interest and nothing else. However, what is in the child’s best interest is an objective assessment and not a maternal one. All factors are to be considered. Therefore, by way of example, should the mother’s reason be that the father has a new girlfriend, or that she does not like his parents – that would not on the face of it be a good reason. Therefore, should the father unreasonably be refused care and contact, he can invoke the law. Should he decide to litigate, the court would assess the matter and make a ruling as to what is in the minor child’s best interest. The court may agree with the mother, or the father, or with none of them.

Final words to fathers

As a father of a child, you are legally afforded with certain parental responsibilities in relation to your child. In South African law, there is no distinction between the rights of a mother and that of a father in relation to a child if the father has full parental rights and responsibilities. However, what the law looks at is what would practically make sense when exercising those rights and responsibilities. In other words, we cannot cut the child in half. The yardstick is, what is in the child’s best interests. All families are different, with many variables at play. Therefore, if it would be in the minor child’s best interests to reside with their mother, that should happen. Even if the father only sees the child on Christmas eve, then that should be the case. However, in the same breath if it would be in the minor child’s best interest for the minor child to reside with the father and the mother to have contact once a month, then that should be enforced. Therefore, if you as a father are unreasonably being obstructed from exercising your rights of care and contact, get legal advice, and enforce your rights.

Sharing is Caring

This and other articles and posts found on this website are written by Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf to assist people with various family law related issues they may have. If you find any of our articles, free resources and posts interesting, or possibly useful to others, please like and share it on Social Media by clicking on the icons below. For more interesting articles and information on Family Law, view our articles and Q&A page. If you have a family law related legal issue and you want someone to answer or reply to it, feel free to post it on our Family Law Blog. Therefore, kindly like and share. Should you require any other legal services and advice, not related to family law, visit Private Legal.
Posted on by Telelaw

Father being refused contact to his child! What are his rights as a Father?

The concept of Family

Fam-i-ly. A three-syllable word, that means so much.  The concept of family is a very broad one and one that takes more than one form. There is the traditional form, and a more modern one. When you say “she is family”, you may be referring to your father’s cousin, a grandparent, or a niece. However, people most often referred to are those closest to you, referring to blood relations, for example, a parent or child. The most basic social unit of what a family comprises of – two parents and in most cases a child.

We are conveniently located in the Pinnacle Building, in the Cape Town CBD. Click here to call us on (021) 4243487 or send us an email.

However, the law now sees people as family who are not necessary married to each other in law, but who may be cohabiting as life partners, bringing a more modern concept to it. As the law recognises family relations, it therefore imposes certain rights, obligations, and certain restraints when it comes to family. For example, spouses have a legal obligation to maintain each other, and you may not marry your sibling. Another example is that of inheritance, even if you never knew you had a child, at your death, he or she would inherit from you if you die intestate, all just because, you are Fam-i-ly.

What is a father?

This article deals with the legal relationship between a biological father and a child.

Not all men are blessed with being referred to as a father. In order to be a father, you have to be a male parent to a child. The child must have been born from you. And therefore, every child can only have one father. However, from the moment you became a father, the law imposed certain rights and responsibilities. These responsibilities will remain until you or your child’s demise. The scope of this article is not to stipulate what a good or bad father is. It is to outline what the responsibilities and rights of a father are towards his child.

What are the father’s rights towards his child?

This article is inspired by the fact that many fathers who are not in a marital, or romantic relationship with the mother of his child, are refused the rights to exercise his parental rights and responsibilities towards his child. In South Africa, we have the Children’s Act 38 (Act 38 of 2005), which came into effect on 1 April 2010. Here section 10 of the Act is of use. It defines parental responsibilities and rights, which includes the right to care for the child, to maintain contact with the child, to act as guardian of the child; and to contribute to the maintenance of the child.

Fathers of children born out of wedlock does not automatically have rights towards their child. In order for you to form part of such a child’s life you need to fulfil the requirements of section 21 of the Act, which basically states:

  • at the time of the child’s birth, you are living with the mother in a permanent life-partnership; and
  • you contribute or have attempted in good faith to contribute to the child’s upbringing for a reasonable period;
  • you contribute or have attempted in good faith to contribute towards expenses in connection with the maintenance of the child for a reasonable period.

Many fathers would have been married to the mother. Others would have meaningfully partook in the child’s life from birth. Therefore, there should generally be no difference between a child born from a marriage and a child born outside of a marriage.  To take the statement further, it is possible for a father of a child born out of wedlock to be the primary care giver of the child, where the mother is only entitled to see the child at certain times and circumstances, or not at all.

What is meant by the terms care and contact?

The question is now posed, what is meant by this right of care and contact a father has towards his child? The Act provides a very holistic understanding of the concept of care. This includes providing the child with proper accommodation, guidance, protection and so on. Basically, to do, and provide the child with whatever is in his or her best interests. Contact, on the other hand entails maintaining a personal relationship with the child, visiting or being visited by him or her, and communication with the child in various forms.

Can the mother of your child deny you contact and care rights?

Now we deal with the issue of whether or not the mother of your child can arbitrary deny you from exercising your parental responsibilities and rights of care and contact. Should a mother feel that the father of her child should have limited rights and care to his child; in order for her to limit his rights, the mother should have a very good reason for doing so. Her reason should be motivated by what is in the child’s best interest and nothing else.

However, what is in the child’s best interest is an objective assessment and not a maternal one. All factors are to be considered. Therefore, by way of example, should the mother’s reason be that the father has a new girlfriend, or that she does not like his parents – that would not on the face of it be a good reason. Therefore, should the father unreasonably be refused care and contact, he can invoke the law. Should he decide to litigate, the court would assess the matter and make a ruling as to what is in the minor child’s best interest. The court may agree with the mother, or the father, or with none of them.

Final words to fathers

As a father of a child, you are legally afforded with certain parental responsibilities in relation to your child. In South African law, there is no distinction between the rights of a mother and that of a father in relation to a child if the father has full parental rights and responsibilities. However, what the law looks at is what would practically make sense when exercising those rights and responsibilities. In other words, we cannot cut the child in half.

The yardstick is, what is in the child’s best interests. All families are different, with many variables at play. Therefore, if it would be in the minor child’s best interests to reside with their mother, that should happen. Even if the father only sees the child on Christmas eve, then that should be the case. However, in the same breath if it would be in the minor child’s best interest for the minor child to reside with the father and the mother to have contact once a month, then that should be enforced. Therefore, if you as a father are unreasonably being obstructed from exercising your rights of care and contact, get legal advice, and enforce your rights.

Sharing is Caring

This and other articles and posts found on this website are written by Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf to assist people with various family law related issues they may have. If you find any of our articles, free resources and posts interesting, or possibly useful to others, please like and share it on Social Media by clicking on the icons below. For more interesting articles and information on Family Law, view our articles and Q&A page. If you have a family law related legal issue and you want someone to answer or reply to it, feel free to post it on our Family Law Blog. Therefore, kindly like and share.

Should you require any other legal services and advice, not related to family law, visit Private Legal.

Related Post

Claiming Child Maintenance from Grandparents – What does the law say?

Many people are of the view that child maintenance may only be claimed by the parents of a child. They have that view even in the case where the parents cannot afford to maintain the child, but the grandparents can. At the outset, we state that the latter view is incorrect. If parents cannot afford to maintain a child, a claim for maintenance may be made against both the paternal and maternal grandparents of the child involved. This applies whether or not the child was born in or out of wedlock. Prior to 2004, or before the case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C), the law allowed parents to claim maintenance for their minor children from maternal and paternal grandparents, as long as the child was born within wedlock, or out of a marriage. If the child was born out of wedlock, then in such a case, the parent could only claim from the maternal grandparents. And not the paternal grandparents. This was clearly unfair and unconstitutional and something that many people would have issues with. In 2004, Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf had a client who wanted to claim maintenance from the maternal grandparents of her minor child, but the law did not allow for it. He and his client was not happy with the legal position and took the matter to the Western Cape High Court (the Provisional Division of the Cape). Adv. Abduroaf cited the Maintenance Office of Simon’s Town Maintenance Court and the paternal grandparents. The matter was argued, and the Court found in favour of Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf and his client. The case opened many doors for mothers in similar positions. Below we discuss the case. Due to Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf’s academic background in Constitutional law and willingness to fight for his client, he challenged the legal position.

Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others

2004 (2) SA 56 (C)

The well-known case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) was a special one. Not because Adv. Abduroaf and his client were successful, but the effect of the case meant that children who could never claim maintenance from paternal grandparents if they were born out of wedlock could do so due to the case. The case also brought about widespread attention to the fact that a parent can claim maintenance from grandparents when the parents cannot afford to support the child on their own.

The following is extracted from the case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) :

[6] The Motan decision is generally accepted as authority for the assertion that the paternal grandparents of an extramarital child do not owe a duty of support to the child. The interpretation of the common law in Motan and the resultant denial of a duty of support by the paternal grandparents of an E extra-marital child has, even prior to the present constitutional dispensation, been widely criticised by South African writers. Van den Heever Breach of Promise and Seduction in South African Law (1954) at 70 says the following: ‘It is submitted that the decision is so patently wrong that it should be reconsidered; for it is based on legislative considerations and methods, which are, moreover, unsound. It is contrary to public policy and humanity and should, if necessary, be rectified by the Legislature.’

This is what Adv. Abduroaf argued:

[7] Mr Abduroaf, who appears for the applicant, submitted that the common-law rule as interpreted in Motan, violates the extra-marital child’s constitutional rights to equality and dignity enshrined in ss 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 (the Constitution) and is contrary to the best interest of the child (see s 28(2) of the Constitution). He accordingly submits that the common-law rule is unreasonable and unjustifiable and should be declared unconstitutional and invalid.

Adv. Abduroaf further submitted:

[14] Mr Abduroaf submitted that the constitutional values embodied in ss 9, 10 and 28(2) of the Constitution, dictate that the common-law rule as enunciated in Motan, be developed by imposing a duty of support upon the paternal grandparents of an extra-marital child in the event of the natural parents of such child being unable to support the child. The said sections of the Constitution provide: ‘9 (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. (3) The State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of ss (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in ss (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair. 10 Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.   . . . 28 (2) A child’s best interest is of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.’  

The Ruling in Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C)

At the end of the matter, the Court made the following ruling: [29] In the result I make the following order:
  1. It is declared that the second and third respondents have a legal duty to support the extra-marital child of the applicant, J, born on 7 January 2003, to the same extent to which the fourth and fifth respondents are liable to maintain the said child.
  2. The first respondent is directed to take the necessary steps for an enquiry to be held in terms of s 10 of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, with a view to enquiring into the provision of maintenance by the second and third respondents for the said extra-marital child of the applicant.
  3. No order as to costs is made.
Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) [caption id="attachment_10745" align="alignnone" width="300"]Best Attorneys, Advocates, lawyers to assist you in your Court Custody matter. When is the best time to get them involved in your case? Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption]

Posted on by Telelaw

Learn how the Child Maintenance Court Application process works – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf

Watch this 10-minute video where Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf explains how child maintenance applications work. He explains the principles and the legal process. We are certain that you found the above article useful and interesting. Please consider sharing it on the share buttons below. They include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Gmail and more. Someone may find it useful as well. Should you require business advice or services, feel free to click on these links: Business SA | Private Legal | Envirolaws

Posted on by Telelaw

Do you require a video legal advice consultation?

Click here and schedule one today!