A Gauteng woman was given a one-month prison sentence for contempt of court after she declined to allow her kids to visit their father.
According to News24, a month of jail time was suspended on the condition that she follow the judge’s directive without delay.
The Gauteng High Court in ruled that the mother had broken the law by not giving her ex-husband the children’s physical address and by denying him visitation with the kids for a week.
To be more precise, she kept the kids home from school for an entire week.
The woman also wouldn’t let her kids talk to their dad on the phone every day at 6:00 pm. As a direct result of this, he made an emergency trip to the court.
LR Adams, the judge, said the woman’s portrayed the man as an “uncaring father”.
She also claimed he was dangerous to the kids’ health and sanity and that he should never be alone with them.
Nanny’s testimony that applicant is loving father contradicts mother’s allegations. “These allegations and accusations by the [mother] are, however, underscored by a number of factors,” the court wrote. “Notably, at a certain point during the divorce settlement talks, the respondent was quite happy to agree to a shared residency regime, which really is wholly incompatible with her allegations of abuse.”
According to one witness, the couple argued frequently, but the father was never abusive to the mother.
She also stated that she had never seen the father physically abuse the children, that he never hurt any of the kids, and that he treated all the kids equally, including the woman’s child from a prior relationship.
That he would pick them up and drop them off at school; that the kids had asked her to call their dad; that she had no problem living with the applicant; that he was neither abusive nor rude to her; and that she would refute the respondent’s claims to the contrary.
No credible evidence has been presented by the [mother] to back up the foregoing claim, in my opinion. That’s where her story falls flat, and why I don’t believe her.
As for the respondent’s arguments against the contempt application, they seem to miss the mark. Adams summed up the issue succinctly: “A court order has been issued and must be obeyed.”
To seek a reversal of a court order is the proper course of action if one is dissatisfied with the outcome of a case. Also, until that order is overturned, the rule of law requires that it be followed.
The judge ordered the lady to pay for court costs.
