- The Western Cape High Court dismissed a mother’s appeal to enforce maintenance for adult children, ruling she lacked legal standing.
- The court held that once children reach majority, only they can claim maintenance or pursue enforcement of orders.
- The judgment provides clear guidance for future disputes, affirming that post-divorce maintenance enforcement is the sole right of adult children.
A mother who turned to the Western Cape High Court in a bid to force her ex-husband to pay more maintenance for their adult children has lost her appeal.
The court’s decision, handed down on 12 December 2025 by M Pangarker J with D M Thulare J and G Elliott AJ concurring, makes it clear that when children come of age, it is up to them, not their parents, to enforce maintenance orders.
The couple had been married for 30 years before divorcing in 2019. Although all four of their children were adults by then, two were still financially dependent and studying. The parents agreed in their settlement that the father would cover maintenance, including a contribution towards their son’s rent while at university.
But the mother told the court that her former husband had not lived up to his responsibilities. She said she had to step in and cover more than R450 000 in expenses for the children between September 2019 and December 2022. Seeking relief, she asked the court to declare her ex-husband in contempt, order further monthly payments, and reimburse her for what she claimed to have paid.
She insisted the divorce order made him solely responsible for supporting both children, arguing in court papers that “the respondent is solely liable for the adult children’s maintenance and… made out no case for the view that their maintenance claims were unreasonable.”
Father argues the law is on his side
The father disagreed, telling the court that the maintenance order did not state he was exclusively responsible or that maintenance must continue until the children became self-supporting. He pointed out that he had paid significant sums directly to the children for education and living costs. Importantly, he challenged his ex-wife’s right to act on behalf of their now-adult children, saying, “the appellant had no locus standi to bring the application for maintenance and contempt of court against him.”
The mother referenced previous cases, Z v Z and Bursey v Bursey, arguing that if a parent can claim maintenance for a dependent major child during divorce, they should also be able to enforce such an order after the divorce is final.
Only adult children may enforce maintenance
After considering the arguments and reviewing the terms of the settlement, the judges found that while parents may secure maintenance for adult children during divorce proceedings, this right does not last forever. Once children are legally adults, the responsibility for enforcement shifts to them.
The court explained, “Once the dependent child reaches the age of majority, he or she therefore has the necessary locus standi in their own name and right to claim maintenance against a parent.”
The judges went further, stating, “The argument by the appellant that locus standi is a non-issue or irrelevant misses the importance of the distinction between maintenance sought in terms of section 6(3) in a divorce between parents of major dependent children, and a parent’s post-divorce claim on behalf of such child for enforcement, arrear maintenance and additional maintenance. As seen above, the distinction is thus not artificial.”
They made it clear that the mother could not claim maintenance or arrears on behalf of her adult children: “Any claim(s) for maintenance against the respondent, and for enforcement of the order, lay solely with [the children] as major dependent children in favour of whom a section 6(3) order was previously granted.”
A clear message about legal standing and costs
The court found that since the children were adults, any action to enforce maintenance had to come from them, not their mother. As the judgment put it, “the appellant lacked locus standi to approach the High Court in such circumstances and seek the relief prayed for in the Notice of Motion.”
The mother’s appeal was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay costs, including for two counsel on Scale C.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
