Introduction

On 25 February 2025, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg, delivered a significant judgment in F v F (2024/114386) [2025] ZAGPJHC 174. The case concerned an application under section 28(1)(a) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 to terminate a father’s parental rights and responsibilities. The decision reaffirms the constitutional principle that the best interests of the child remain paramount in all matters involving minors.

Background to the Case

The applicant (the mother) sought an order terminating the respondent’s (the father’s) guardianship and care rights over their two children, born in 2012 and 2015.

The factual history revealed a complete absence of parental involvement since 2016. Despite recommendations for re-bonding therapy and supervised contact, the father consistently failed to attend sessions or make efforts to rebuild a relationship. He was also in arrears of R42,750 in maintenance, refused to assist with passport applications, and showed no genuine commitment to the children’s upbringing.

A Voice of the Child report confirmed that both children had no emotional attachment to the father, with the eldest rejecting even photographs of him and the youngest stating he did not remember him.

The Legal Framework

The court’s reasoning was grounded in:

• Section 28 of the Constitution, which makes the best interests of the child paramount.
• Sections 7 and 18 of the Children’s Act, which outline factors to consider when assessing the welfare of a child and define parental rights and responsibilities.
• Section 28(1)(a) of the Children’s Act, which permits a court to terminate or suspend parental rights upon application.

Du Plessis J also referred to case law such as GM v KI 2015 (3) SA 62 (GJ), emphasising that parental rights cannot be divorced from responsibilities. A parent cannot abandon obligations for years and then attempt to enforce rights.

Court’s Analysis

The court condoned the father’s defective affidavit but found the evidence overwhelmingly in favour of termination. Several key findings were made:

1. Abandonment of responsibilities – The father had failed to provide emotional, financial, or developmental support for nearly eight years.
2. Impact on the children – The minors thrived under the sole care of their mother and explicitly voiced their desire to have no relationship with their father.
3. Failure to cooperate – Refusal to attend bonding sessions, contribute to expenses, or facilitate travel opportunities highlighted a lack of genuine parental interest.
4. The voice of the child – The children’s wishes carried significant weight, consistent with South African jurisprudence on child participation in matters affecting them.

The Order

The High Court terminated the father’s parental rights and responsibilities of guardianship and care. The mother was declared the sole guardian, vested with:

• Exclusive decision-making power regarding education, medical care, and property matters.
• Authority to obtain passports, visas, and identity documents without the father’s consent.
• Full power to consent to the removal of the children from South Africa for travel purposes.

The father was further ordered to pay costs on a party-and-party scale.

Significance of the Judgment

This case highlights several critical points in South African family law:

• Best interests of the child prevail – Even the biological bond between parent and child can be severed if it undermines a child’s welfare.
• Parental rights are conditional – They exist only insofar as they are exercised alongside responsibilities.
• Children’s voices matter – Reports capturing the perspectives of minors are central to judicial decision-making.
• Practical empowerment of custodial parents – Courts are willing to vest sole guardianship to ensure stability, especially where the non-custodial parent obstructs developmental opportunities.

Conclusion

The decision in F v F sends a clear message: parental rights are not automatic entitlements but privileges tied to responsibility, commitment, and care. In circumstances where a parent is absent and uncooperative, the law will not hesitate to intervene to secure the stability and best interests of children.

For parents, this judgment underscores the importance of consistent involvement, financial support, and respect for the evolving voices of their children. For practitioners, it illustrates the increasing weight courts place on Voice of the Child reports and the constitutional mandate to protect minors from emotional harm and neglect.