The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg recently reviewed and overturned a protection order that had been granted after a 9-year-old boy, M, claimed his friend, C, had squeezed his private parts, which was described as harassment. The case brings attention to the complexities of interpreting children’s behavior and how legal processes should approach such matters, particularly when it comes to young children involved in a dispute.
M and C, both 9 years old and in Grade 3, had been close friends for several years, spending time together both during school and outside of school. In mid-September 2022, M told his mother that C had squeezed his private parts, which made him feel upset. M’s mother initially raised the concern with the class teacher, but when she felt the issue wasn’t being addressed quickly enough, she took the matter further by contacting the school principal. The school conducted an informal investigation and asked C to stay at home for a few days. However, M’s mother felt the response was insufficient and applied for a formal protection order.
Given that C was so young, M’s mother filed the protection order against C’s father, as the child was not legally responsible for his actions. M’s mother explained that she believed C’s actions were inappropriate and asked for protection from any further harm. On the other hand, C’s father denied the allegations, explaining that the incident might have been a case of rough play between the two friends, which is common among young children.
Despite the differing perspectives, the magistrate granted the protection order based on the complaint from M’s mother, without hearing from the children or the father. The order was to last until 2028. C’s father, however, appealed the decision, and the case was brought before Acting Judge Sarita Liebenberg.
Judge Liebenberg expressed concern about the magistrate’s decision to issue the order without considering additional evidence or hearing from both children involved. She pointed out that M and C, as young children, may not fully understand the implications of their actions, and that what might have seemed like a troubling incident could have been part of the normal behavior between two friends.
The judge also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that C’s actions were meant to harm M or were intentionally distressing. She emphasized that, while M may have felt uncomfortable, there was no indication that C’s actions were part of a deliberate effort to harass him. Judge Liebenberg explained that children’s behavior can sometimes be misunderstood, especially when they have been close friends for many years, and that their actions should be interpreted with care.
In her judgment, Judge Liebenberg concluded that the behavior described did not meet the legal criteria for harassment. She overturned the protection order, stressing that it was important to consider the context and the ages of the children involved. The ruling highlights the need for a balanced and thoughtful approach when dealing with legal matters involving young children, especially when behaviors that are seen as inappropriate might simply be a misunderstanding or part of typical play.
This case serves as a reminder that children’s actions, while sometimes uncomfortable or confusing to adults, may not always require legal intervention. It underscores the importance of carefully assessing the situation and understanding the dynamics between children before making legal decisions.
