Violating A Court Order - Parental Alienation - Imprisonment
D v D unreported case, Western Cape High Court
Parental Alienation is a form of child abuse and the courts will impose imprisonment or a jail sentence if a parent deliberately violate a court order.
The Applicant (father) in this application instituted divorce proceedings against his wife during 2018. Three minor children were born from the marriage, aged 11 and two twins aged 4. During 2019 the wife launched a Rule 43 application which provided that the father had contact with the children for 4 hours on every alternative weekend, Saturday and Sunday at a time agreed and for 2 hours a week on a day and time agreed. The rule 43 court order also provided that the father’s contact with the minor children was subject to him undergoing psychotherapy and for the father to participate in reunification therapy with the children. Despite the terms of the rule 43 court order providing for the appointment of certain mental health care professionals and a supervisor to supervise the contact the mother frustrated the process by finding fault with each of the supervisors and insisting that another supervisor be appointed instead. Over a short period of time approximately four different social workers supervised contact. The mother also failed to cooperate in the appointment of a psychologist to conduct the reunification therapy. The father initially did not oppose the mother’s unilateral decisions in respect of the supervisors as such disputes would have resulted in delays and cause him to not have contact with his children.
The first application
As a result of the mother’s conduct the father launched an urgent application during March 2021 for the appointment of a new social worker to supervise his contact with the minor children and to provide logs of such contact and for the appointment of a psychologist to conduct the reunification therapy. The parties’ legal representatives then by agreement agreed to the appointment of a social worker and a psychologist to conduct the reunification therapy. The father was elated and thought that he would finally be able to see his children again on a regular basis, but the respondent took every opportunity to cause further delays and he only had his first contact session with the minor children almost 4 months later.
The second application
During July 2021 the father had his first contact session with the twins under the supervision of a social worker, which was the first in-person contact he had with them since December 2020. The father continued to have supervised contact sessions with the twin boys once per week from July 2021 2 November 2021. During November 2021 the mother unilaterally and unlawfully terminated his contact, after the contact was extended by the reunification psychologist to 4 hours. The mother addressed an email to the reunification psychologist and informed her that she was of the view that it was not in the minor children’s best interests to have contact with the father and that she will not be allowing any further contact sessions, telephonically or otherwise between the children and the father. The mother did not consult any of the professionals before terminating the father’s contact and on the contrary, her unilateral decision to terminate the father’s contact had gone against the directives previously given by the reunification psychologist. The mother’s unilateral termination of the father’s contact was unlawful, and in contravention of two court orders and against the advice of all the professionals. As a result, the father had no choice but to approach the court for relief, which was brought on an urgent application for the mother to be in ordered to comply with the directives of the reunification psychologist and to be declared to be in contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment should she continue to disregard the orders of the court and ignore the father’s parental rights.
In response to the urgent application and rather than by engaging with the merits of the matter the respondent’s attorney raised a number of ill-conceived technicalities regarding the fact that the wrong case number was used and in addition he threatened to obtain a punitive cost order against the father should the application not be withdrawn. To make matters worse and to aggravate the already tense situation, the mother’s attorneys delivered a notice in terms of rule 35 (12) and (13) in which various documents were sought which were not relevant and which already was in their possession. It was clear that delaying tactics and constitute steps were taken in an attempt to take attention away from the mother’s unlawful termination of the father’s contact, which tactics and the taking of technical points in an urgent matter about children ought to be frowned upon. The urgent application was heard in the first week of December 2021 and the court reinstituted the status quo for the father’s contact with the minor children to continue.
The third application
Shortly after the order was granted, the social worker who supervised the contact attempted to arrange contact for the father with the minor children. The mother ignored the request and informed the social worker that her attorney had asked for certain information and only once the information is received will she respond to the contact request. Shortly thereafter the mother’s attorney sent letters to the various mental health care experts and accused them of not being transparent in the reunification process. Despite the court orders entitling the father to have contact and due to the mother’s obstructive tactics the father still did not have contact with the minor children. A few days later the mother’s attorneys addressed a letter to the father’s attorneys informing them that the mother and the minor children had left for holiday, and they were unable to take instructions and said they will revert upon her return. The mother did not engage with the father about the intended holiday and did not engage with the mental health care professionals about taking the children on holiday and by doing so acted unilaterally, showing a complete disregard for the father’s rights and the orders of the court.
As a result, the father had no option but to approach the court for urgent relief requesting the court to hold the mother in content and to sentence her to imprisonment for disregarding the court orders and wilfully obstructing the father’s contact with the minor children.
Given that the mother made a mockery of various court orders of the High Court. She was found to be in contempt of:
It was clear that the mother continued to do just as she pleased, refused the father’s contact, hiding behind requests for documents and casting unfounded aspersions, like the lack of transparency by the professionals, and, in a clear display of utter disregard for the father’s rights or the orders of the Court, left on holiday and took the children away with her, without discussion with the father or any of the professionals, and without a letter to the father’s attorneys.
The mother made a habit of frustrating the father’s contact with the children: After the Rule 43 order was granted in October 2018, she kept finding fault with the supervisors after a few sessions and insisted that another be appointed instead, often leading to severe delays in the recommencement of the father’s contact to the minor children, and, as a result, the father barely saw the children during 2020.
Order
The judge ruled and declared that the mother was in contempt of the court orders. She was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, being every Saturday and Sunday from 08:00 to 17:00 for a period of a year, at Pollsmoor Prison: Medium B Section, with immediate effect should she frustrate the father’s contact in future and the children’s contact with the father was restored.
For the Applicant:
Maurice Phillips Wisenberg Attorneys
Attorney: Bertus Preller
Counsel: Adv Brian Pincus SC and Adv Adri Theart
Parental Alienation is a form of child abuse and the courts will impose imprisonment or a jail sentence if a parent deliberately violate a court order.
The Applicant (father) in this application instituted divorce proceedings against his wife during 2018. Three minor children were born from the marriage, aged 11 and two twins aged 4. During 2019 the wife launched a Rule 43 application which provided that the father had contact with the children for 4 hours on every alternative weekend, Saturday and Sunday at a time agreed and for 2 hours a week on a day and time agreed. The rule 43 court order also provided that the father’s contact with the minor children was subject to him undergoing psychotherapy and for the father to participate in reunification therapy with the children. Despite the terms of the rule 43 court order providing for the appointment of certain mental health care professionals and a supervisor to supervise the contact the mother frustrated the process by finding fault with each of the supervisors and insisting that another supervisor be appointed instead. Over a short period of time approximately four different social workers supervised contact. The mother also failed to cooperate in the appointment of a psychologist to conduct the reunification therapy. The father initially did not oppose the mother’s unilateral decisions in respect of the supervisors as such disputes would have resulted in delays and cause him to not have contact with his children.
The first application
As a result of the mother’s conduct the father launched an urgent application during March 2021 for the appointment of a new social worker to supervise his contact with the minor children and to provide logs of such contact and for the appointment of a psychologist to conduct the reunification therapy. The parties’ legal representatives then by agreement agreed to the appointment of a social worker and a psychologist to conduct the reunification therapy. The father was elated and thought that he would finally be able to see his children again on a regular basis, but the respondent took every opportunity to cause further delays and he only had his first contact session with the minor children almost 4 months later.
The second application
During July 2021 the father had his first contact session with the twins under the supervision of a social worker, which was the first in-person contact he had with them since December 2020. The father continued to have supervised contact sessions with the twin boys once per week from July 2021 2 November 2021. During November 2021 the mother unilaterally and unlawfully terminated his contact, after the contact was extended by the reunification psychologist to 4 hours. The mother addressed an email to the reunification psychologist and informed her that she was of the view that it was not in the minor children’s best interests to have contact with the father and that she will not be allowing any further contact sessions, telephonically or otherwise between the children and the father. The mother did not consult any of the professionals before terminating the father’s contact and on the contrary, her unilateral decision to terminate the father’s contact had gone against the directives previously given by the reunification psychologist. The mother’s unilateral termination of the father’s contact was unlawful, and in contravention of two court orders and against the advice of all the professionals. As a result, the father had no choice but to approach the court for relief, which was brought on an urgent application for the mother to be in ordered to comply with the directives of the reunification psychologist and to be declared to be in contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment should she continue to disregard the orders of the court and ignore the father’s parental rights.
In response to the urgent application and rather than by engaging with the merits of the matter the respondent’s attorney raised a number of ill-conceived technicalities regarding the fact that the wrong case number was used and in addition he threatened to obtain a punitive cost order against the father should the application not be withdrawn. To make matters worse and to aggravate the already tense situation, the mother’s attorneys delivered a notice in terms of rule 35 (12) and (13) in which various documents were sought which were not relevant and which already was in their possession. It was clear that delaying tactics and constitute steps were taken in an attempt to take attention away from the mother’s unlawful termination of the father’s contact, which tactics and the taking of technical points in an urgent matter about children ought to be frowned upon. The urgent application was heard in the first week of December 2021 and the court reinstituted the status quo for the father’s contact with the minor children to continue.
The third application
Shortly after the order was granted, the social worker who supervised the contact attempted to arrange contact for the father with the minor children. The mother ignored the request and informed the social worker that her attorney had asked for certain information and only once the information is received will she respond to the contact request. Shortly thereafter the mother’s attorney sent letters to the various mental health care experts and accused them of not being transparent in the reunification process. Despite the court orders entitling the father to have contact and due to the mother’s obstructive tactics the father still did not have contact with the minor children. A few days later the mother’s attorneys addressed a letter to the father’s attorneys informing them that the mother and the minor children had left for holiday, and they were unable to take instructions and said they will revert upon her return. The mother did not engage with the father about the intended holiday and did not engage with the mental health care professionals about taking the children on holiday and by doing so acted unilaterally, showing a complete disregard for the father’s rights and the orders of the court.
As a result, the father had no option but to approach the court for urgent relief requesting the court to hold the mother in content and to sentence her to imprisonment for disregarding the court orders and wilfully obstructing the father’s contact with the minor children.
Given that the mother made a mockery of various court orders of the High Court. She was found to be in contempt of:
- a Rule 43 granted during 2018 in which order the Applicant (father) was granted supervised contact with the children;
- a court order in March 2021 where certain mental healthcare professionals were appointed to facilitate the Applicant’s reunification with the children; and
- an order in December 2021 in terms whereof the Court specifically ordered the mother to comply with the directives of the professionals and continue with the father’s supervised contact.
It was clear that the mother continued to do just as she pleased, refused the father’s contact, hiding behind requests for documents and casting unfounded aspersions, like the lack of transparency by the professionals, and, in a clear display of utter disregard for the father’s rights or the orders of the Court, left on holiday and took the children away with her, without discussion with the father or any of the professionals, and without a letter to the father’s attorneys.
The mother made a habit of frustrating the father’s contact with the children: After the Rule 43 order was granted in October 2018, she kept finding fault with the supervisors after a few sessions and insisted that another be appointed instead, often leading to severe delays in the recommencement of the father’s contact to the minor children, and, as a result, the father barely saw the children during 2020.
Order
The judge ruled and declared that the mother was in contempt of the court orders. She was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, being every Saturday and Sunday from 08:00 to 17:00 for a period of a year, at Pollsmoor Prison: Medium B Section, with immediate effect should she frustrate the father’s contact in future and the children’s contact with the father was restored.
For the Applicant:
Maurice Phillips Wisenberg Attorneys
Attorney: Bertus Preller
Counsel: Adv Brian Pincus SC and Adv Adri Theart
