- Grandparents said a series of incidents showed their grandson faced ongoing danger in his mother’s care.
- The child’s father supported the application, but the mother opposed it.
- The Family Advocate will investigate allegations of abuse and neglect while the child remains in his mother’s care under strict interim safeguards.
A crash, a child’s injured finger, alleged substance abuse and plans to move provinces became the centre of a bitter family battle over the safety of a six-year-old boy. His grandparents argued that the string of incidents showed he was no longer safe in his mother’s care.
The grandparents asked the High Court in Mbombela to immediately remove the boy from his mother’s care, place him with them and order that both parents have only supervised contact with him. The child’s father supported the application, while the mother opposed it.
Acting Judge HF Fourie refused the urgent bid, ruling that although the allegations were serious, removing the child was the most drastic remedy and less disruptive measures could protect him while the Office of the Family Advocate investigates his best interests.
A child moved between families
The case revealed a deeply troubled history stretching back to 2023. When the boy was about two years old, his paternal grandparents and aunt removed him from his parents without a court order after learning that the Department of Social Development intended to place him in foster care. He lived with his paternal family in Mozambique for about two years.
Professional assessments were conducted during that period, including one recommending that the parents’ parental rights be suspended. Yet in late 2025, the grandparents returned the child to his parents without judicial or professional intervention because they believed the family had stabilised. That stability collapsed almost immediately when the parents separated.
The incidents behind the urgent application
The grandparents told the court that nearly a year of troubling incidents convinced them the child was in danger. They pointed to concerns about the mother’s living conditions, a motor vehicle accident involving her, an incident in which the child’s finger was caught in a door, allegations of substance abuse and her intention to relocate with the child to the Northern Cape.
They also said the boy repeatedly told them he was afraid of monsters and bad people, arguing that the pattern of events showed an unsafe home environment.
Why the judge rejected immediate removal
Judge Fourie accepted that the allegations warranted a thorough investigation, including claims of physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse made by both sides.
However, he found a critical flaw in the grandparents’ case: they had known about the complained-of incidents for months but only sought urgent removal nearly a year later. If they genuinely believed the child faced immediate danger, the judge said, they would have approached the court much sooner.
He concluded that the delay undermined the argument that emergency removal was necessary. The court also considered the mother’s current circumstances. She has secured employment, lives with the child’s maternal grandparents and has enrolled the boy at a primary school where he is due to begin Grade 1 in 2027.
The judge found that, although far from perfect, the arrangement offered the child greater stability than many previous periods of his young life.
The child’s wish
Before delivering judgment, Judge Fourie held an informal play session with the six-year-old in the presence of the Family Advocate.
The boy did not express a preference for living with either side of his family. Instead, he said he wanted his parents and grandparents to stop fighting and to treat one another with love.
The judge described the child’s words as the greatest display of wisdom in a dispute where the adults had repeatedly taken matters into their own hands.
Safeguards while the investigation continues
Rather than removing the child, the court ordered a series of interim measures designed to protect him while causing the least possible disruption to his life.
The child will live with his mother from Monday morning until Friday afternoon and spend weekends with his paternal grandparents. His father may have supervised contact every alternative Saturday for six hours.
Both parents must undergo drug and liver enzyme testing within five days. The mother is prohibited from relocating to another town or removing the child from his school, and all medical, psychological, dental and scholastic records must be made available to the Family Advocate.
The Family Advocate has been directed to investigate the child’s primary residence, the suitability of each party to exercise care and contact, and whether a curator ad litem should be appointed. Once that report is completed, the family will return to court for a final determination.
The court ordered each party to pay their own legal costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
