- The court found that the father deliberately frustrated the Family Advocate process, causing unnecessary delays.
- The mother was justified in bringing an urgent application due to repeated non-compliance.
- Punitive costs were awarded after the court found that the father had acted in bad faith.
A father who refused to attend a Family Advocate interview and repeatedly delayed a child-focused investigation has been ordered to pay costs on an attorney-and-client scale.
Acting Judge M Van Nieuwenhuizen found that the father’s conduct was obstructive, made in bad faith, and directly responsible for forcing the matter into urgent litigation.
Background and pattern of obstruction
The court traced a clear pattern of delay and non-cooperation by the father. Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen noted that the father had previously failed to participate in Children’s Court processes and had resisted engaging with a social worker appointed to investigate the children’s circumstances, a pattern that extended into the Family Advocate process.
The father refused to attend a scheduled interview on 9 December 2025, citing medical reasons and the child’s schooling commitments. The mother challenged this explanation, particularly after the father declined to provide a medical report, refused to allow the child to attend the interview with the mother, and maintained his position despite multiple requests.
Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen noted that the father refused to provide a medical report, agree to the mother taking the minor child to the interview, or attend the scheduled interview.
The court also weighed evidence that directly undermined the father’s claimed incapacity. Social media posts showed the father attending a birthday celebration at a game farm, where he appeared active and unhindered. Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen found this telling, noting that the alleged medical condition was flatly contradicted by the father’s own behaviour.
Urgent application and shifting position
Faced with continued refusal, the mother launched an urgent application to compel compliance. Only once the application was on the table did the father reverse his position and indicate a willingness to attend the Family Advocate interview.
The court found that this late change of stance did not erase the earlier conduct that necessitated litigation. Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen said the father made a 180-degree turn only after he was faced with the reality that he may not get away with his previous stratagem.
The father argued that the matter had become moot given his undertaking to attend the interview, and that costs should not follow. The court rejected this. Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen held that the mother was not required to accept last-minute undertakings, particularly given the history of non-compliance and delay.
Court rejects medical justification
A central issue raised by the father was his reliance on medical certificates to justify non-attendance. The court found these certificates unpersuasive and, ultimately, irrelevant.
Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen held that the medical certificates became irrelevant from the moment the father agreed to attend the interview.
The certificates were not supported by confirmatory affidavits and failed to substantiate claims of scheduled surgery. The court found that they did nothing to justify the father’s earlier refusal to cooperate.
Punitive costs justified
The decisive question before the court was whether the father’s conduct warranted a punitive costs order. Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen exercised her discretion in favour of such an order, finding that the father had acted in bad faith throughout.
The court found that the father’s conduct was made in bad faith, and exercised its discretion accordingly to grant punitive costs.
The court emphasised that the application could have been avoided entirely had the father simply complied from the outset. Instead, his conduct forced the mother to incur unnecessary legal costs.
In closing, Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen made clear that fairness demanded the mother not be left to shoulder the financial burden of the father’s obstruction.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
