Durban - A senior official in the Office of the Chief Family Advocate has, unusually, weighed in on a bitter battle between separated parents over access to their 2-year-old son, labelling them “serial litigants” and cautioning that their behaviour will leave “permanent scars” on their child and themselves.
She has also accused the attorney acting for the mother of violating the “conciliatory approach” dictated by the Children’s Act and obstructing justice by walking out of a Family Advocate’s inquiry.
The outcome of the litigation - which will come before the Durban High Court again next week - will set the tone for similar cases, with Kgaogelo Josephine Peta, Senior Legal Administration Officer, stating that her office “will not tolerate parties playing chess and abusing the system”.
“They have lost sight of the fact that their child needs both parents.This has rendered them to be serial litigants,” she said.
In particular, she said, the “stern approach and negative effect” of Estelle de Wet, the attorney acting for the mother, “has had a negative effect of exacerbating the already acrimonious relationship between the parents”.
The Mercury previously reported on the matter after the father went to court complaining that De Wet was behaving vindictively and making the access dispute more acrimonious.
De Wet, in her initial response, said this was “simply nonsense” and, in her later response to Peta’s affidavit, says she had, in fact, suggested mediation.
She said she only ever acted on instructions from her client and blamed the father for the ongoing litigation.
In his application, the father is seeking an order that he be allowed to be interviewed by the Office of the Family Advocate without De Wet being present because he feels “intimidated and uncomfortable”by her presence because of her confrontational manner and “smirking”.
He claimed that after he obtained a court order instructing the Family Advocate to do an access inquiry, De Wet had written to the office saying the inquiry was a “waste of time”and “the time used could be better spent on matters which actually require investigation”.
Then, when the inquiry was set down, she and her client walked out because he refused to allow De Wet to sit in on his interview.
Peta said the parties had now reached a “deadlock” which was affecting their child. They were putting their selfish needs ahead of his. She urged the judge dealing with the application to take heed of her concerns and the fact that it was “extremely rare” for parties to insist on having lawyers present at inquiries.
“I recommend that they desist from this continuous litigation. The parties have adopted a confrontational approach and their legal representatives are applying an adversarial approach which is not suitable for family dispute matters.
“They must develop a mature, responsible and caring approach in their interpersonal relationship to achieve a situation and routine that works best for the child.
“I recommend that they enter into a parenting plan which should be made an order of the court,”she said.
De Wet, in her affidavit, blames her client for leaving the inquiry.
“The situation seemed beyond resolution and when she decided not to participate on his (the father’s) terms and to leave, I had no choice to but to follow suit.
“It is him who refused to sit in the same room as me.”
She says Peta’s criticisms of her were “entirely unfounded and unfair” and it was the father who was confrontational.
“I am also duty-bound to act in the best interests of my client and to support her in circumstances.”
The mother, in her affidavit, denies she is a “serial litigant” and says it is her ex-partner who has been continuously litigating.
The Mercury