Jophannesburg -
“No right-thinking parent would not protect the interest of offspring. If the law expects me to sit idle and let the stable life of my child be destroyed to satisfy the bruised ego of his father, then, as Lord Denning once said, ‘the law is an ass’.”
This was the response of a Limpopo mother of a 7-year-old boy, who is facing an order from the high court in Pretoria to return her child to the UK, where his father lives.
In terms of The Hague Convention regarding international abduction, a child wrongfully removed from a state which is a signatory to the convention, must be sent back as soon as possible if it will not cause the child any harm.
The Central Authority – the office of the Family Advocate in South Africa – must approach the high court, which in turn will have to determine whether the child should be returned or not.
The high court in Pretoria has heard various such applications this year, the most recent being the case of the little boy only identified as G.
His mother and father were never married. Nor did they live together, but he was born in the UK following a brief friendship between the pair.
The mother apparently fled to South Africa on the eve of the child’s father launching custody proceedings in the UK.
This was despite an order that the mother may not remove the child from the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
The mother, in her answering statement to the father’s allegations, denied that she was aware of any legal proceedings.
She stated that she had no choice but to flee to South Africa to protect her child.
“I left England out of desperation and in an attempt to protect the interests of my child,” she stated.
The mother said her husband made it clear that he did not want the child.
She said if the boy was to return to the UK without her, he would end up in a foster care home.
The mother said G had since birth not known any other parent other than herself and that his father was a stranger to him.
“His father might have rights as envisaged by The Hague Convention, but he expressly stated he was not willing to keep G in his house. He said he was keen on sending him to Cornwall Council (a foster home).”
“I will not allow anyone who chose not to be involved in my son’s life since birth, to interfere with his happiness.”
The mother added that her son would be psychologically affected if he was forced to go back and that he wanted to stay in South Africa anyway.
The South African authorities, on behalf of the father, however, urged the court to send the child back, so that the courts in the UK could decide on custody. They argued that in terms of The Hague Convention, to which South Africa is a signatory, the child had to be returned.
The authorities said they had tried to find an amicable solution for the problem by trying to speak to the mother.
However, she “vanished” from her home in Centurion and “tracing agents” had to be called in to locate her.
The court earlier this year appointed a lawyer to act on behalf of the child to see what was in his best interests. Professor Ann Skelton of the Centre for Child Law was appointed and she too, recommended the child be sent back to the UK.
The matter this week stood down for a few weeks to see whether common ground on certain aspects could not be found between the parties.
Pretoria News