- The father kept the child beyond his court-ordered contact period and left him with the child’s paternal grandfather.
- He claimed the boy had been abused while in his mother’s care, but the court found the injuries did not show abuse.
- Judge Adams ordered the child’s immediate return to his mother and directed that the forensic and Family Advocate investigations continue.
A four-year-old boy found himself in the middle of a growing dispute between his parents when his father did not return him to his mother after a court-ordered contact visit.
The parents are married but separated and in the middle of a contested divorce. Their son, born on 15 April 2022, had been placed mainly in his mother’s care under a Rule 43 order from the High Court in Polokwane on 22 May 2025. The order gave the father set contact rights, including alternate weekends and arrangements for school holidays.
The father picked up the child on 31 July 2026 but did not return him to his mother on 2 August when the contact period ended. Instead, he left the boy with his own father, the child’s paternal grandfather. The grandfather was not part of the proceedings and did not have any court-ordered rights or responsibilities over the child.
The father admitted that his father hid himself and the child from police who tried to enforce the court order. The judge considered this behaviour when looking at the father’s decision to ignore the arrangement already set by the court.
Father relied on abuse allegations to justify keeping son
The father tried to justify his actions by claiming the child had been physically abused while in his mother’s care. He also accused the mother of intimidation and manipulation and made further allegations involving police and criminal charges. The mother denied these claims and said the father had taken the law into his own hands by creating a situation where the child stayed with him.
The alleged abuse focused on scratches and abrasions to the bridge of the child’s nose and a healing mark on his thigh. Judge Adams found the mother’s explanation for these injuries “eminently reasonable and acceptable.” The court also considered a Family Advocate report from 24 July 2026, which recommended that the child’s primary residence stay with his mother and found no strong reason to remove him from her care.
The father had also turned to the Children’s Court, but a rule nisi obtained for him was later discharged for lack of jurisdiction. The judge found that the father’s allegations had not been proven through a proper fact-finding process.
Judge rejects attempt to create new custody status quo
Judge Adams found the father’s decision to keep the child was a direct breach of an existing court order. “The applicant did not approach this Court for urgent relief before retaining the child,” the judge said. Instead, the father had chosen his preferred outcome and then looked for the court’s approval afterwards.
Judge Adams was especially concerned that the child had been put in a situation where his grandfather was hiding from the police and the boy was hidden under blankets. Such actions, the judge said, were “fundamentally inconsistent with the stability, emotional security and protection” that a four-year-old child needs.
The judge also rejected the father’s attempt to remove clinical psychologist Nandhi Du Plooy from the case. The father had called Du Plooy a “hired gun” and claimed she was biased against him. Judge Adams found the father had not shown any falsified evidence, dishonest methods or improper financial interest that would justify ending her involvement.
That Du Plooy had questioned him about the child’s whereabouts and his failure to return the boy did not prove bias. The judge said a forensic professional could not be expected to ignore the circumstances around the child’s retention.
Court keeps forensic investigation in place
The court also considered a dispute about Du Plooy’s fees, which was already before the Health Professions Council of South Africa. Judge Adams said the dispute should be dealt with there and should not stop the psychologist from continuing her forensic investigation.
The judge found that Du Plooy had forensic continuity from before and after the child was kept and that removing her could interrupt the investigation. The father’s application also asked for a curator ad litem for the child and the appointment of another clinical psychologist, but both requests were turned down.
Judge Adams said the child’s best interests must always come first and that the current professional investigation should be allowed to continue. The court directed the parties to cooperate with the investigation and provide what the psychologist needs to finish her report.
Judge orders immediate return to mother
The urgent application was dismissed with costs, with Judge Adams ordering the parties to comply fully with the Rule 43 order granted in Polokwane on 22 May 2025. The father was told to return the child immediately to his mother’s care and custody.
The order also said that anyone physically controlling the child must help ensure his return. The Sheriff of the High Court was authorised, if needed, to help with enforcement and to call on the South African Police Service.
Du Plooy was ordered to continue and complete her forensic investigation. Both parents must cooperate with her and provide medical records, photographs, court orders, police documents and other relevant details.
The Office of the Family Advocate was also ordered to investigate and prepare a report on the child’s best interests, especially his primary residence, care and contact. Judge Adams said the current care arrangement had to be restored to protect the child from more trauma and to keep his best interests central to the case.
The father was ordered to pay the mother’s costs for the urgent application, including counsel’s charges on the appropriate tariff.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
