Background: A Complex History of Custody Disputes and Sexual Misconduct Allegations
In a compelling judgment delivered by Acting Justice Nicholson in the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg, the court grappled with a protracted custody dispute spanning several years. The case of N.J.B.D. v C.D (8780/2021P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 112 highlights the intricate challenges courts face when dealing with serious allegations of sexual misconduct in custody matters.
The matter originated from a divorce settlement agreement in September 2021, where both parties agreed to unsupervised visitation rights for the applicant father. However, merely a month later, the respondent mother sought to vary this agreement, bringing forward allegations of sexual misconduct against the applicant concerning their six-year-old daughter, G. Notably, evidence revealed that the respondent had harboured these suspicions since November 2019, yet proceeded to sign the settlement agreement in June 2021 allowing unsupervised access.
The case’s complexity deepened when Justice Shoba, in September 2024, dismissed the respondent’s variation application, finding that she had manipulated an expert witness to make findings favourable to her version. This judgment reinstated the original settlement agreement’s terms, including unsupervised access. However, the victory proved short-lived for the applicant, as new allegations emerged, leading to supervised access being reimposed.
The court expressed particular concern about several aspects of the case, including the respondent’s apparent distrust of all experts, even those she appointed, and her seeming unwillingness to accept any outcome that did not confirm her suspicions. Equally concerning was the applicant’s somewhat nonchalant response to potential evidence of sexual misconduct, failing to consider the possibility of abuse occurring during his care periods by others.
Drawing from precedent established in F.J v E.J [2008] ZAWCHC 27, the court emphasised its duty to consider all relevant facts in determining the paramount issue: the child’s best interests. This approach was further reinforced by S v M [2007] ZACC 18, which interprets Section 28(2) of the Constitution as creating an ‘expansive guarantee’ of children’s rights.
The matter culminated in a forensic evaluation ordered by Justice Pitman, conducted by Professor Tanya Robinson and Ginette Hermann. Their report exonerated the applicant, aligning with previous findings by the South African Police Services, Child Protection Unit, and various other experts. However, the respondent challenged the report’s validity, not on its content, but based on the evaluators being social workers rather than psychologists.
Acting Justice Nicholson’s experience in family court matters, including investigations of child abuse cases, proved particularly relevant. He noted the absence of typical patterns seen in child abuse cases, such as threats or bribes to maintain silence, further supporting the conclusion that abuse had not occurred. This thorough analysis set the stage for a carefully structured approach to resuming contact between father and child, prioritising the child’s emotional well-being while acknowledging the complex family dynamics at play.
The Role and Competency of Social Workers as Expert Evaluators in Family Court
Acting Justice Nicholson’s judgment provides crucial insights into the recognition and validity of social workers as expert evaluators in family court proceedings. Drawing from O’Neil and Connell ‘The law and social work, with particular reference to the role of the private social work practitioner’ (1986) De Rebus, the judgment emphasises that social workers undergo comprehensive training, majoring in social work, psychology, and sociology during their four-year degree programmes at recognised universities.
The court’s analysis of the evaluators’ qualifications demonstrates the evolving acceptance of social workers’ expertise in family matters. Professor Robinson’s credentials, including four PhDs in clinical and forensic social work, psychosocial legal science, forensic science, and criminal justice, alongside her extensive academic contributions, established her competence. Similarly, Ms Hermann’s international training in Forensic Interviewing of Children from the United Nations, coupled with her expertise in child safeguarding and parent-child attachment, reinforced the validity of their evaluation.
The judgment significantly addresses the intersection between social work and psychology in family court matters. Social workers’ unique focus on understanding personal social functioning within environmental contexts, particularly within family systems, positions them ideally for conducting comprehensive evaluations. Their training in cultural variations and societal structures that influence family dynamics adds depth to their assessments.
According to Terblanche v Terblanche 1992 (1) SA 501 (W), courts possess extensive powers in establishing children’s best interests, unrestricted by procedural structures or evidential limitations. This principle supports the court’s pragmatic approach to expert evidence, focusing on the substance and utility of the evaluation rather than rigid professional categorisations.
The court’s emphasis on social workers’ ability to present psycho-social reports demonstrates a progressive understanding of their role in family law. The judgment clarifies that the pertinent question is not whether evaluators are psychologists, but whether their expertise contributes meaningfully to determining the child’s best interests. This approach aligns with the constitutional imperative of prioritising children’s best interests, as enshrined in Section 28(2) of the Constitution.
This aspect of the judgment sets a significant precedent for recognising social workers’ expertise in family court evaluations, particularly in complex cases involving allegations of abuse. It reinforces that social workers’ holistic understanding of family dynamics, combined with their professional training and experience, makes them valuable contributors to the court’s decision-making process in family matters.
Balancing Urgency and the Best Interests of the Child in Family Court Applications
The judgment provides critical insights into the court’s approach to urgency in family matters, particularly distinguishing between genuine child-centred urgency and parent-driven haste. While citing East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd and Others [2011] ZAGPJHC 196, the court emphasises that Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules governing urgent applications is not merely available for the taking – applicants must explicitly demonstrate circumstances warranting urgency.
The court’s analysis draws on Maqubela v South African Graduates Development Association and Others [2014] ZALCJHB 38, which establishes two key considerations for urgency: setting out reasons making the matter urgent and demonstrating why substantial relief cannot be obtained later. This framework is particularly nuanced in family matters, where the test shifts from “absence of substantial redress” to “the best interests of the child.”
Acting Justice Nicholson introduces an important distinction in D.D v I.L and Another [2024] ZAWCHC 215, where the court held that self-created urgency does not meet Rule 6(12) requirements. The judgment emphasises that additional time allowing proper consideration of the child’s best interests might be preferable to rushed decisions, even in matters involving young children.
The Constitutional Court’s perspective in Jiba v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others [2009] ZALC 57 regarding degrees of urgency provides crucial guidance. The court acknowledges that while child matters are inherently urgent, the extent of rule relaxation should correlate with the degree of urgency. Importantly, the judgment distinguishes between urgency serving the child’s interests versus serving parental interests.
The court’s approach balances competing considerations: the inherent urgency of child matters against procedural fairness and thorough consideration. While acknowledging the applicant’s eagerness for normalised contact, the judgment emphasises that parental anxiety should not override proper procedural considerations. This balanced approach ensures that urgent applications in family matters serve their intended purpose – protecting children’s interests rather than accommodating parental preferences.
The court’s innovative solution – proceeding with the matter despite questionable urgency to provide a more permanent solution – demonstrates judicial pragmatism in family matters. This approach upholds both procedural integrity and the paramount consideration of the child’s best interests, setting a valuable precedent for managing urgent applications in family court matters.
The Court’s Innovative Approach: Appointment of Case Coordinator and Curator ad litem
In addressing the complex dynamics of this custody dispute, Acting Justice Nicholson crafted an innovative solution through the dual appointment of a case coordinator and curator ad litem. The judgment invokes D.D.K v R.M.B.D.K & Van Aswegen NO [2023] ZAGPJHC 382 to distinguish between these roles, emphasising that while both serve the child’s interests, they fulfil distinctly different functions.
The appointment of Ms Janette Hermann as social worker case coordinator represents a novel approach to managing the practical aspects of visitation and monitoring the child’s wellbeing. Her mandate encompasses crucial oversight functions: facilitating supervised handovers, receiving weekly updates on the child’s wellbeing, ensuring appropriate emotional support, and making determinations about the progression of visitation arrangements. This coordinating role creates a structured framework for implementing the court’s orders while maintaining professional oversight of the child’s adjustment.
The curator ad litem appointment of Mr Claudio Bollo addresses a critical gap identified in the proceedings – the absence of G’s independent voice in the litigation. Unlike the Family Advocate’s neutral role, the curator’s mandate explicitly focuses on representing and advancing the child’s interests. The judgment emphasises that the curator’s role isn’t merely to speak on behalf of the child but to enable the child’s voice to be heard, even when this might disappoint parents or conflict with their wishes.
The court’s directive for collaboration between these appointees, particularly in their reporting obligations and assessment of the child’s best interests, creates a comprehensive support system. This collaborative approach ensures that both the legal and psychosocial aspects of the child’s wellbeing are adequately addressed. The mandate for both appointees to provide reports in future litigation ensures continued professional oversight of the child’s interests in any subsequent legal proceedings.
Significantly, the judgment provides for the possibility of the curator initiating independent litigation if deemed necessary for the child’s best interests. This provision acknowledges that the child’s interests might sometimes require legal intervention beyond the scope of the parents’ applications, establishing a safeguard for the child’s rights independent of parental litigation.
The court’s innovative structuring of these roles, combined with the requirement for group therapy including romantic partners/spouses, demonstrates a holistic approach to addressing family dynamics. This comprehensive framework moves beyond traditional visitation orders to create a supportive environment for implementing the court’s decisions while maintaining professional oversight of the child’s wellbeing.
Phased Implementation: A Structured Path to Normalising Parent-Child Contact
Acting Justice Nicholson’s judgment introduces a carefully calibrated approach to reinstating parental contact, rejecting the ‘ripping the Band-Aid’ approach recommended in the expert report. This decision acknowledges G’s significant life changes, including adjusting to her parents’ new relationships, the arrival of a half-sibling, and the loss of her maternal grandfather.
The court’s phased implementation begins with a four-week transitional period featuring structured unsupervised visitation: alternate weekend days from 8h00 to 16h00, and alternate Wednesdays and Fridays from 14h00 to 17h00. This arrangement is complemented by daily telephone or video contact between 17h00 and 18h00, ensuring consistent communication while managing the transition.
The judgment consciously addresses the complex family dynamics by requiring the appointment of a psychologist within five days for group therapy. This therapeutic intervention uniquely includes both parents, the child, and optionally their romantic partners or spouses. This inclusive approach recognises that successful co-parenting requires all family members to adjust to their new roles.
Regarding primary residence considerations, the court demonstrates careful consideration of stability by rejecting immediate shared primary residence. This decision acknowledges G’s need to bond with her younger sibling and the importance of minimising further disruption after extensive professional interventions. The judgment leaves room for future reconsideration of shared residence arrangements once family relationships stabilise.
The implementation framework includes crucial financial provisions, making both parents jointly and severally liable for professional costs. This shared financial responsibility reflects the court’s view that both parents must invest in the success of the arrangement. The punitive costs order against the applicant for the urgent application serves as a reminder that even legitimate concerns must be pursued through appropriate legal channels.
The court’s structured approach emphasises that normalising parent-child contact isn’t merely about increasing access time but requires careful attention to the child’s emotional adjustment and family dynamics. This comprehensive framework prioritises the child’s stability while working towards the ultimate goal of normal parent-child relationships, demonstrating the court’s commitment to achieving sustainable long-term solutions in family matters.
Questions and Answers
What constitutional principle underpins the court’s approach to child matters in South Africa? Section 28(2) of the Constitution establishes that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child, creating both a guiding principle and an expansive guarantee of rights.
How does the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 define the right to contact with a child? The Act defines it under Section 18(2)(b) as “the responsibility and the right to maintain contact with the child,” establishing contact as both a parental right and responsibility.
What are the court’s powers in establishing children’s best interests according to the Terblanche case? The Terblanche case establishes that courts have extremely wide powers, unbound by procedural structures or limitations of evidence presented, and may access any source of information to resolve custody disputes.
How does South African law view the urgency of child-related matters compared to other urgent applications? Child matters are considered inherently urgent, with the test being “the best interests of the child” rather than the traditional urgent application test of “absence of substantial redress in due course.”
What is the legal status of a curator ad litem’s role in South African family law? According to the D.D.K case, a curator ad litem represents the child’s interests independently, speaking for the child rather than just on their behalf, and is not bound to follow the child’s instructions unlike a legal representative.
What legal principle governs the court’s acceptance of expert evidence from social workers? The court follows the principle that the relevance and utility of expert evidence in determining the child’s best interests outweigh rigid professional categorisations, provided the experts are suitably qualified in their field.
How does South African law treat self-created urgency in family court applications? As established in the D.D case, self-created urgency does not meet the requirements of Rule 6(12), even in child-related matters, if additional time would better serve the child’s interests.
What legal considerations apply when varying existing custody arrangements? The court must consider whether the variation serves the child’s best interests, with particular attention to stability and the impact of changes on the child’s well-being.
What is the legal position regarding expert evaluations in family court matters? The court has wide discretion in appointing and accepting expert evaluations, focusing on the substance and utility of the evaluation rather than strict professional designations.
How does South African law address the implementation of access rights after a period of supervised contact? The law favours a phased approach to normalising contact, prioritising the child’s emotional adjustment over immediate full implementation of court-ordered rights.
What legal authority does a case coordinator have in managing contact arrangements? A case coordinator’s authority stems from the court’s appointment and specific mandate, including the power to modify arrangements within the parameters set by the court order.
How does the court approach costs orders in family matters involving urgent applications? The court may impose punitive costs orders for inappropriate urgency whilst maintaining the principle that professional costs should typically be shared between parties.
What legal principles govern the court’s approach to shared residency applications? The court prioritises stability and existing care arrangements, requiring clear evidence that shared residency would serve the child’s best interests before ordering such changes.
How does South African law view the relationship between parental rights and children’s rights? The law emphasises that parental rights are subordinate to children’s rights, with contact rights vesting primarily in the child rather than the parent.
What authority does the court have to order therapeutic intervention in family matters? The court, as upper guardian of all minor children, has inherent jurisdiction to order therapeutic intervention when it serves the child’s best interests, including mandating group therapy for family members.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: