Pretoria - The tug-of-war often encountered between divorced parents over their children must immediately stop and parents must act like responsible adults and realise that the ones suffering are the children.
This was the message from an acting judge who had stern words for the parents of two daughters, aged six and seven.
The parents are fighting over the custody of the children, with each party lashing out at the other over their ability to be a good parent. To make matters worse in this case which landed before the high court in Bloemfontein, the children’s nanny had badmouthed the mother.
But when confronted by the legal parties about her claims that the mother left the children with her so that she could go and “drink at the bar her new lover owned,” the nanny chose to remain tight-lipped.
The father turned to the court in light of the nanny’s claims, requesting an order for the kids to stay with him. He also wanted an order that the police go to the home of his ex to fetch their belongings.
Acting Judge NG Gusha said the facts in this case reminded her of a poignant African proverb Ndovu wawili wakisongana, ziumiazo ni nyika. This is a Swahili proverb which states “when two elephants fight, the grass suffers”.
The judge said this was the sad reality for many children who, at the end of their parents’ union, found themselves in a tug-of-war.
She said that in the country’s new dispensation the sins and traumas of fathers and mothers should not be visited on their children.
She added that no constitutional injunction could, on its own, insulate children from harsh family and neighbourhood environments.
“What the law can do is create conditions to protect children from the abuse and maximise opportunities for them to lead productive and happy lives. Thus, even if the State cannot itself repair disrupted family life, it can create positive conditions for repair to take place, and diligently seek wherever possible to avoid conduct of its agencies which may have the effect of placing children in peril.”
The application by the dad was sparked by WhatsApp messages from the nanny who made allegations of child abuse and neglect against their mother.
She said the mother and/or her partner would refuse the children meals or treats. At times they would, as punishment for not finishing their school lunches, be made to eat the lunch as dinner and be locked in the bathroom for 30 minutes for a misdemeanour.
In addition, the nanny said, the mother often dropped the children at her house so that she could join her lover at his business, a bar.
However, the mother also made allegations against the father, saying he showered in the nude with the two children when they visited him and that he slept with them in one bed.
The allegations were denied by the parents. The mother admitted that she did leave the children with the nanny from time to time, but she said it did not happen frequently.
As this dispute concerned children and their welfare, the court ordered the Office of the Family Advocate to institute an investigation.
Having considered the reports of the family advocate, the judge said she was unable to find that one parent was better able to promote and ensure the physical, moral, emotional and spiritual welfare of the children than the other.
“Both have been found wanting in their parenting skills. They each have experienced their fair share of trials and tribulations.”
But the judge said what tipped the scale in the mother’s direction was that during the divorce, the family advocate recommended that the children stay with her.
“It is manifest that the man and the woman, if not for themselves, then for the sake of their minor children, have a lot to work on, singly and collectively … The current acrimony between the parents and tugging at their offspring does not bode well for the well-being of the children. This needs to stop,” the judge said.
Pretoria News