- The High Court refused a mother’s urgent bid to relocate her three children to Zimbabwe, finding the move was not in their best interests at this stage.
- Judge Stuart Wilson held that while the mother retains full parental rights, the children should remain temporarily with their aunt, who has been caring for them since their father’s death.
- The court ordered strong safeguards to protect the children’s relationship with their mother and directed the Family Advocate to investigate long-term relocation options.
The High Court in Johannesburg has refused an urgent application by a mother to relocate her three minor children from South Africa to Zimbabwe, ruling that the move would not presently serve the children’s best interests.
In a deeply human and careful judgment, Judge Stuart Wilson emphasised the need for stability following extreme trauma, while firmly protecting the children’s relationship with their mother.
The case arose after the children’s father died in tragic circumstances in November 2025. Since then, the children have been living with their paternal aunt, who opposed the mother’s attempt to remove them from South Africa on an urgent basis. The mother argued that she had no permanent right to remain in South Africa and needed to take the children to Zimbabwe before returning to her employment in Ireland.
Judge Wilson accepted that the mother is the children’s parent and primary rights holder under the Children’s Act, but held that relocation could not be ordered in circumstances where the children would not actually be living with her.
“On the information currently available to me, I have concluded that it is not presently in the children’s best interests to be relocated to Zimbabwe,” he said. The court noted that the mother intended to return to Ireland, leaving the children in the care of relatives in Zimbabwe with whom they had no meaningful relationship.
Children’s trauma and need for stability
The judgment reflects acute sensitivity to the children’s lived reality following the death of their father. Judge Wilson recorded that the children were born, raised, and educated in South Africa, and that they are “settled and comfortable” in their aunt’s care for the time being. He warned against compounding their trauma through abrupt displacement, particularly where no clear caregiving plan was in place.
While acknowledging the mother’s position, the court found that “in the absence of residence with the mother being a realistic imminent prospect, the advantages to the children from continued residence with LB outweigh the disadvantages.” The judge stressed that the decision was not a permanent one, nor a rejection of the mother as a parent, but a pause designed to protect the children while longer-term solutions are properly explored.
Alienation concerns and firm judicial intervention
The court was sharply critical of the aunt’s conduct in preventing contact between the mother and her children after their father’s death. Judge Wilson rejected arguments that the children themselves had refused contact, describing the submission as “particularly cynical” in the circumstances. He found that the aunt had blamed the mother for her brother’s death and had “sought deliberately to keep the children from the mother.”
Although the court recognised that grief may explain the aunt’s conduct, it made clear that such behaviour could not continue. “There was never any justification for preventing the mother from seeing the children,” Judge Wilson said, adding that the children had not been alienated from their mother despite what had occurred. The judge observed that during proceedings, two of the children physically gravitated toward the mother, underscoring the emotional bond that remained intact.
Mother’s rights affirmed, future options kept open
Importantly, the court formally declared that parental rights and responsibilities vest in the mother, even though the children will remain temporarily in the aunt’s care. Judge Wilson made it clear that, had the choice been between the children living with their mother or remaining with their aunt, “I would have had little hesitation” in ordering relocation to enable them to live with their mother.
To prevent further harm, the court imposed a detailed contact regime requiring unsupervised communication between the mother and her children several times a week, whether in person or by video call. The aunt was prohibited from engaging in any conduct that could alienate the children from their mother and was directed to support a positive relationship.
The matter has been retained under Judge Wilson’s supervision, with the Family Advocate ordered to investigate whether it would ultimately be in the children’s best interests to relocate to Ireland, Zimbabwe, or elsewhere. “I do not wish to close the door to the children eventually rejoining the mother,” the judge said, signalling that the current arrangement is both protective and temporary.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
