- The High Court authorised a father to travel to the United States with his 16-year-old son and to apply for renewal of the child’s South African passport despite the mother’s objections.
- The court confirmed that section 26B of the Citizenship Act applies only to major citizens and does not criminalise or prohibit court-approved travel by minors.
- Acting as the upper guardian, the court imposed safeguards to ensure the child’s return, schooling continuity, and ongoing parental contact.
The Western Cape High Court has reaffirmed that South Africa’s citizenship and passport laws cannot be invoked to block court-authorised international travel involving minor children, particularly where such travel serves the child’s best interests.
In a dispute between a mother and a father over international travel with their minor child, Justice G Da Silva Salie authorised the father to travel to the United States with his 16-year-old son and dispensed with the mother’s consent, rejecting arguments that the proposed trip would be unlawful under the South African Citizenship Act.
The court emphasised that while South African citizens are ordinarily required to enter and depart the Republic on South African passports, this requirement regulates administrative compliance rather than citizenship status itself. Addressing the mother’s reliance on Section 26B of the Citizenship Act, Justice Da Silva Salie held that the provision “applies expressly and exclusively to a major citizen” and “does not apply to minor children, does not criminalise a child’s travel, and does not divest a child of South African citizenship by reason of passport non-compliance”.
The judgment further clarified that a court order authorising international travel by a minor does not place the judiciary in conflict with citizenship legislation. “Section 26B does not render unlawful a Court order authorising international travel involving a minor child,” the judge stated, adding that any non-compliance with passport formalities may at most result in administrative consequences capable of rectification through Home Affairs processes.
How the parental conflict reached court
The application arose from a post-divorce parenting conflict between the mother and the father, who were divorced in 2018. Their divorce order regulates care and contact in respect of their two minor sons. The present dispute concerned only the older child, now aged 16, with the father seeking authorisation to travel with him to the United States for a short holiday visit during December. The younger sibling, aged 13, was not part of the proposed travel arrangements.
The father approached the court after the mother withheld consent for both the renewal of the minor’s South African passport and the international travel. Her opposition was grounded primarily in the assertion that the trip would be unlawful due to alleged non-compliance with citizenship and passport legislation. She further raised concerns that, without strict adherence to Home Affairs requirements and confirmed return arrangements, the child could be exposed to legal risk or might not be returned to South Africa.
Justice Da Silva Salie found this framing of the dispute to be legally unsound. The court rejected suggestions that the child could be arrested, treated as a visitor, or barred from re-entering South Africa, stating unequivocally that “a South African citizen cannot be rendered a visitor in his or her own country, nor can such citizen lawfully be excluded from the Republic”. The judge also dismissed the mother’s suggestion that she could face criminal liability as a guardian, describing it as “speculative and unsupported”.
Best interests of the child and safeguards imposed
In assessing the application, the court reiterated that the decisive consideration was the best interests of the minor child, as required by Section 28(2) of the Constitution. Justice Da Silva Salie noted that the mother’s opposition was framed predominantly in legal and administrative terms and did not establish that the proposed travel would be harmful to the child’s welfare, safety or emotional well-being.
During the argument, it was confirmed that the father had secured a return flight, with the minor scheduled to return to South Africa on 7 January 2026, and that the child’s private school fees in Cape Town had already been paid for the 2026 academic year. In these circumstances, the court held that “no evidence is placed before the Court to suggest that the applicant seeks to frustrate the minor’s return to South Africa or to undermine the respondent’s parental rights”.
The court authorised the child’s departure on a combination of documents, including a receipt issued by the Department of Home Affairs for the passport renewal, the expired South African passport, a birth certificate, a United States passport, and the court order itself. Justice Da Silva Salie stressed that “outstanding administrative processes, without more, do not justify the refusal of travel where such travel is authorised and demonstrably consistent with the child’s best interests”.
Court steps in as upper guardian
Acting as the upper guardian, the High Court imposed detailed conditions to regulate the travel and protect the interests of both the child and the mother. The father was ordered to provide the confirmed travel itinerary, overseas addresses, and contact details at least 24 hours before departure, and to ensure reasonable telephonic or electronic contact during the trip, taking time-zone differences into account.
The mother’s consent for both the passport renewal and the international travel was formally dispensed with, and the court directed the Department of Home Affairs to accept and process the passport application on the strength of the court order alone.
The judgment also addressed the broader family context. Justice Da Silva Salie expressed concern that strengthening the father’s relationship with the older child should not occur at the expense of the younger sibling. The court directed the Office of the Family Advocate to investigate care and contact arrangements in respect of both children and to report back in 2026, highlighting the importance of nurturing healthy relationships between the father and both sons.
Given the ongoing parental relationship and the nature of the dispute, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
