- The High Court dismissed an urgent application brought in an ongoing parenting dispute involving a 10-month-old baby.
- Judge PE Molitsoane found the father did not prove urgency and was asking for relief that had already been granted in previous orders.
- The judge noted that the Family Advocate’s investigation has been outstanding for almost a year.
The High Court in the Free State has dismissed yet another urgent application from the father in a dispute that has involved six judges so far.
Judge PE Molitsoane pointed out that when the interim order was granted on 30 May 2025, the child was just over one month old. By the time this latest application was heard, the child was 10 months old.
Referring to earlier remarks made in this case, Judge Molitsoane said, “We have seen too often that fights between parents negatively affect children, and I often wonder how children can grow into good adults when their parents fight like this.”
The judge mentioned, “The problem is, he may not know what is going on right now because he is still small, but we never know how emotional conflict affects him.”
Urgency threshold not met
The father submitted the latest application on what Judge Molitsoane described as extremely urgent timelines. The papers were issued and served on a Friday afternoon. The respondent had to file a notice to oppose and an answering affidavit by 10am on Monday, with the application set for hearing just two hours later.
Judge Molitsoane found this approach unfair to the respondent and other litigants already waiting for their cases to be heard.
The judge wrote, “The applicant cannot bring this matter on shortened timelines as indicated. His conduct not only harmed the respondent but also unnecessarily affected other litigants whose matters were already on the docket.”
The father mentioned issues about unilateral crèche decisions, disruption of the child’s routine, vaccination concerns, breakdown of joint decision-making, and weakening of the child’s bond with him. The court decided these claims lacked the detailed facts needed to justify urgency.
Judge Molitsoane said, “What the applicant has mentioned are conclusions rather than facts that would enable the court to assess the urgency of the situation.”
The judge added, “He has failed to clearly explain why he seeks to bypass the queue and why he cannot get a resolution in a later hearing.”
Relief already granted
A key part of the judgment was the court’s finding that much of the relief requested had already been granted in earlier orders issued on 30 May 2025 and confirmed on 24 July 2025. The father again asked for orders on contact and care, daily video calls, neutral exchanges, third-party collection, travel restrictions, and not being interfered with by extended family.
Judge Molitsoane wrote, “Returning to court for the same relief that has already been granted amounts to misuse of the legal process.”
Regarding the renewed request for travel restrictions, Judge Molitsoane added, “This further indicates a misuse of court procedures.”
The court also dismissed complaints about vaccinations and medical information, noting that the father had access to the clinic card and that an earlier order already allowed him access to important medical information and updates regarding the child’s health.
Judge Molitsoane wrote, “Having parental rights and responsibilities does not mean the applicant needs to be consulted at every step about all decisions concerning the child.”
Family Advocate delay
Even though the application was dismissed, Judge Molitsoane expressed concern that the investigation by the Office of the Family Advocate had not been finished for almost a year.
The judge said, “The delay of almost a year for the Family Advocate's investigation is troubling.”
The court ordered the Family Advocate to provide the parties with a report on the investigation within 60 days. If the investigation is not complete by then, an interim report must be given within the same timeframe.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
