In a recent ruling by the Eastern Cape High Court, a judge made a poignant remark about the essential role of grandparents in a child’s development. “Grandparents, like heroes, are as necessary to a child’s growth as vitamins,” said Judge JW Eksteen during an appeal case where a father contested a lower court order allowing his sons’ maternal grandmother contact with them. The father, however, did not share this view, and his objection was central to the appeal.
The case unfolded after the tragic death of the children’s mother, a nurse who had been employed by the South African National Defence Force. Following her passing in a car accident, the children, aged nine and 13, moved in with their father. The maternal grandmother, who had been an important figure in the children’s lives before the mother’s death, sought permission from the Children’s Court to maintain contact with them. This included regular telephone conversations and visits during school holidays. However, the father, initially in agreement, later reversed his position, deciding to cut off ties with his late partner’s family entirely.
The grandmother, a widow in good health, lives alone in a large four-bedroom house and expressed her readiness and ability to care for the children. She had been an active presence in their lives, even having cared for them at one point, and felt strongly that maintaining a connection with her was in the best interests of the children. Despite her well-being and stability, the father insisted on preventing any contact, citing personal grievances and his desire to sever ties with his former partner’s family.
A social worker, who had investigated the situation, reported that there was no indication that the children would be at risk of harm while under their grandmother’s care. The social worker emphasized that the grandmother only had the children’s best interests at heart. Nevertheless, the father insisted that any visits should be supervised and proposed that the children visit their grandmother at a police station, which the court found both unnecessary and emotionally damaging for the children.
Judge Eksteen, in considering the case, emphasized the child-centred approach mandated by the Children’s Act. He acknowledged that the children had a strong bond with their grandmother before their mother’s death, but noted that they had not had meaningful contact with her in the two years since. Despite the father’s concerns, the judge found no grounds to fear for the children’s safety with their grandmother. “The visitation of the boys with their grandmother in a police station strikes me as most inappropriate for their emotional and psychological well-being,” the judge remarked.
In his final ruling, Judge Eksteen ordered that the children should be allowed to visit their grandmother and communicate with her in a structured and organized manner. The judge’s decision aimed to protect the children’s emotional and psychological well-being while maintaining their relationship with a loving family member who had been a significant part of their lives. The case underscores the delicate balance courts must strike in family disputes, always prioritizing the children’s best interests in the face of parental disagreements.
