SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2026-067729
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
RH Applicant
and
YZ Respondent
JUDGMENT
WENTZEL -THOMPSON J
Introduction
[1] This matter first came before me in the Family Court on 14 May 2026 as one of
urgency. It had been preceded by an Order of this court during July 2025 removing the
applicant’s minor child, D, (who is presently 14 years old) from the applicant’s care and
placing him into the respondent’s care at the instance of the respondent. It was also
preceded by an interim Order of the Magistrate’s Court on 18 February 2026 entitling
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
______________ _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
the applicant to supervised access to D , pending the outcome of the investigation by
Ms. Tanya Kriel, a private social worker, as to the best interests of D.
[2] In terms of that Order, the respondent was entitled to have supervised contact with D
every Saturday from 13h30 to 17h00 (a period of 3.5 hours) commencing on 28
February 2026 until the next court date. The matter was postponed until 7 July 2026
on which date Ms. Kriel was to file her final report.
[3] Notwithstanding this Order, the applicant alleged that the respondent repeatedly
breached the terms of the Order by frustrating, preventing and interfering with the
supervised contact sessions between D and the applicant. The applicant complained
that the respondent had unilaterally cancelled her court-ordered access to D on 7
March 2026 and 1 4 March 2026 and had failed to facilitate both physical and
telephonic access with D as directed by the Court. The applicant also stressed that
although these latter two incidents grounded her claim for urgency, since D had been
removed from her care, the respondent had repeatedly frustrated her access to D.
[4] In addition, the applicant objected to the fact that the respondent had taken unilateral
decisions regarding D’s care and had admitted him to a mental health facility to deal
with his self - harming that he had reported to the applicant on 9 March 2026. The
applicant bemoaned the fact that she had been entirely exclude from critical decisions
affecting D’s immediate care, wellbeing and treatment. The applicant further alleged
that the respondent had continuously isolated D from her, his grandmother and his
therapeutic professionals such as Ms. Kriel. The applicant feared that this was
contributing to D’s alienation from her, which he felt was a deliberate agenda pursued
by the respondent, who she believes wishes to ultimately obtain custody of D.
[5] This prompted the applicant to bring an urgent application against the respondent
[5] This prompted the applicant to bring an urgent application against the respondent
(who was the first respondent in those proceedings) on 1 April 2026 for contempt of
the 18 February 2026 Order that served before my brother Kuny J . The respondent
responded by bringing a counter - application for a curator ad litem to be appointed to
D.
[6] After consulting with Ms. Kriel in the presence of the legal team (but in the absence of
the parties), Kuny J made an Order on 3 April 2026 in the following terms concerning,
inter alia, the terms of the supervised access of the applicant to D as recommended by
Ms. Kriel:
“1. The supervised contact sessions as set out in paragraph 11.2.1 of the Children’s
Court order dated 18 February 2026 under case number 14/1/4/2-403/2025
granted by the learned Magistrate Mathopa ("the Order"), is to occur this Saturday,
4 April 2026, between 13:30 and 17:00, at a neutral venue as directed by Ms
Tanya Kriel and/or the allocated social worker, from time to time, at the KidzBuzz
practice (“the therapeutic team”) under their direction, supervision and guidance.
2. The therapeutic team is directed to engage with the minor child, D, 10 minutes
prior to the intended contact session as set out in paragraph 1 above in order to
conduct an emotional landscape assessment.
3. Once the emotional landscape assessment has been completed, the supervised
contact session as set out in paragraph 1 above shall proceed under the
guidance, direction and supervision of the therapeutic team.
4. Following on the supervised contact session as set out in paragraph 1 above the
contact sessions as set out in the Order are to resume under the guidance,
direction and supervision of the therapeutic team.
5. The first respondent be and is directed to ensure the minor child’s attendance at
each of the contact sessions set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 above as well as the
process being conducted by the therapeutic team for the rendering of a final report
and under their guidance, supervision and direction.
6. The therapeutic team is directed to determine the neutral venue at which the
contact sessions as per paragraph 4 above are to occur.
7. Failing compliance with paragraphs 1 to 6 above, either party be and is granted
leave to approach this Court on the same papers, supplemented to the extent
necessary, for the appropriate relief.
8. The main application and counter-application are postponed sine die.
9. The costs of the main application and counter-application are reserved.”
[7] On first perusing the Order made by Kuny J, that was in the exact terms as the Draft
[7] On first perusing the Order made by Kuny J, that was in the exact terms as the Draft
Order prepared by the respondent’s counsel, I was immediately concerned about the
extent of the power conferred upon Ms. Kriel and the social workers employed by her
to determine the terms of the access to D, without continued judicial oversight over the
process. In my view, the supervised access afforded to the applicant by social workers
in the employ of Ms. Kriel through her practice, KidsBuzz, at their offices, was a
completely unnatural environment not at all conducive to reintegrating D with the
applicant, as I was informed was intended.
[8] On 10 May 2026, the applicant launched a second urgent application that was
uploaded onto Caselines on 13 May 2026. A certificate of urgency was uploaded on 14
May 2026, together with annexures to the founding affidavit as well as what was
termed an “Evidence Bundle”. The matter was served on the respondent’s attorneys
without affording them a proper opportunity to respond to the application.
[9] I must point out that whereas the applicant had been previously represented, she
appeared in person before me, insisting that she no longer trusted her legal team as
they were conflicted as she perceived that they had too close a relationship with Ms.
Kriel, who the applicant felt was biased against her and both unreasonably prevented
D returning to her care and restricted her access to D. Although the manner of placing
the evidence before me was not in accordance with the Rules of Court, I nevertheless
considered it as the Upper Guardian of D as the applicant was unrepresented and the
matter concerned serious allegations about the well-being and mental state of D.
[10] In the matter before me, the applicant sought an o rder urgently removing D from the
respondent’s care on the basis that his life was in imminent danger as he was self-
harming by cutting his arms and had threatened to end his life. Reference was made
to several WhatsApp conversations between D and the applicant in which he
expressed suicidal thoughts as well as photographs of his self-harming. D also
complained in messages to the applicant that the respondent was locking him in his
room and was overly strict with him . He had also sent a message to Ms Kriel
expressing his desire to return to live with the applicant. It was particularly concerning
expressing his desire to return to live with the applicant. It was particularly concerning
to me that the applicant insisted that prior to D being removed from her care, he had
never engaged in self-harming or expressed suicidal ideation.
[11] That being said, I was acutely aware that the picture presented to me was one-sided
and that the applicant had afforded the respondent an unreasonably short period of
time to answer the application. I accordingly stipulated times for the filing of answering
and replying affidavits and postponed the matter for hearing before me on 1 June 2026
when I knew I would be sitting in the Urgent Court.
[12] On 21 May 2026, co-incidentally the day that the respondent was directed to file her
answering affidavit, Ms Kriel sent the parties a 51 page report dealing with matters
relevant to the matter before me. This report was clearly secured by the respondent to
support her opposition to the applicant’s application. I have already said that the Order
made by Kuny J after consulting with Ms. Kriel was substantially in the terms of the
draft order prepared by the respondent’s counsel. Ms. Kriel’s report dated 17 February
2016 regarding the joint session between the parties and D on this date was attached
to the respondent’s affidavit in the proceedings before Kuny J.
[13] The respondent argued in her answering affidavit that although I was the U pper
Guardian of D , there was no reason why the dispute cannot and should not be
determined by the Randburg Children’s Court, where the application brought by the
respondent for D to be placed in her care is currently pending. This, co-incidentally is
exactly what has been recommended by Ms. Kriel in her report attached to the
answering affidavit before me.
[14] There is absolutely no need for me to defer the application before me to pending
proceedings before the Children’s where the urgent application before was that D was
in imminent danger and urgently needed to be removed from the respondent’s care as
he was self-harming and expressing suicidal ideation. This was an issue that had to be
taken seriously by me, and has been taken seriously by me. It is also an issue that I
believe has been adequately addressed by me.
Background
[15] Prior to D being removed from the applicant’s care, the applicant had been D’s primary
provider and caregiver. The applicant and D’s father were never married and their
relationship was an abusive one resulting in the Court terminating his parental
responsibilities and rights to D. The applicant, accordingly, exercises sole parental
responsibilities and rights in respect of D, subject of course to the interim orders now
made by the Children’s Court and the High Court.
[16] The matter is complicated by the fact that the applicant and the respondent are waring
[16] The matter is complicated by the fact that the applicant and the respondent are waring
sisters. F.A is the mother of the two sisters and supports the applicant’s current
application. She, however, had previously supported the respondent’s application to
remove D from the applicant’s care. The applicant insists that this is because she
believes that she erroneously believes that she had supported the respondent’s
application to remove D from the applicant’s care and have her admitted to a
psychiatric facility.
[17] The basis upon which D was removed must be mentioned as I believe that it must
seriously be questioned. On both D’s and the applicant’s versions, D’s removal was
preceded by a fight between the applicant and F.A about whether D should be given
R6000.00 by the applicant to purchase certain digital items for a computer game that
he was enamoured with. The applicant refused to do so and insisted that he should
earn the money by performing chores, not an unreasonable demand to my mind. F.A,
however, insisted that he be given the money. Regrettably, D informed me that the
applicant had been drinking and the dispute turned into a screaming match culminating
in the applicant throwing an ashtray or some other hard object at F.A , causing F and D
to run and lock themselves downstairs. D then called the respondent to come and
fetch them, which she did.
[18] The two days later , the respondent sought an order removing D from the applicant’s
care and for her committal to a mental institution. The application for the applicant’s
committal was woefully inadequate and had been based solely the report of a
psychiatrist that had never examined the applicant and had relied only upon the
respondent’s hearsay evidence. The respondent’s application for D’s removal was,
however, successful and endorsed by Wanless J , who on 20 July 2025, issued a rule
nisi calling upon the applicant to show cause on 25 August 2025 why an order should
not be granted ordering that the care of D be awarded to the respondent, pending the
determination of the Children’s Court investigation in terms of section 50 of the
Children’s Act, 30 of 2005, and granting the applicant supervised access to the D.
[19] The matter came before the Children’s Court on 23 July 2025 that extended the care
order that had been granted by Wanless J and an interim order was granted directing
Ms Kriel to conduct a voice of the child assessment as soon as possible and directing
Ms Kriel to conduct a voice of the child assessment as soon as possible and directing
that the applicant’s supervised access be facilitated by KidsBuzz (Ms. Kriel’s practice).
The court also directed that a parental co-ordinator be appointed. A parental co-
ordinator was appointed but was removed for reasons unknown to me.
[20] Wanless J’s rule nisi was extended on 25 August 2025 to 15 October 2025.
[21] The matter returned to the Children’s Court on 13 October 2025. The day before the
hearing, Ms. Kriel filed a confidential report, whose recommendations the Magistrate
made an Order of Court. The matter was postponed to 18 February 2026 to enable
Ms. Kriel to file her voice of the child report. The report filed on 17 February 2026
indicated that D’s preference was to remain in the care of the respondent.
Complicating factors
[22] The matter is complicated by the fact that it is common cause that several years ago,
the applicant had an affair with the respondent’s husband that ended her marriage.
This also resulted in the respondent refusing to talk to the applicant for an extended
period of time, during which the respondent did not see D. A relatively short time
before the aforementioned incident resulting in the respondent seeking an order to
remove D from the applicant’s care, the applicant states that she reached out to the
respondent resulting in their reconciliation and her being part of her and D’s life again.
D and the respondent formed a good bond with one another during this period.
[23] It must also be mentioned in the mix of circumstances outlined by me that t he
respondent does not have her own children and it cannot be discounted that she may
be motivated to retain D in her care indefinitely , and by this I mean until he is old
enough to decide for himself with whom he wishes to reside. D has already spent
close to a year in the respondent’s care with extremely limited access to the applicant.
Should he continue to reside with her for the foreseeable future without serious efforts
made to reintegrate D with the applicant, I fear that their relationship may become
irreparably damaged to the detriment of D and the applicant. I have already indicated
that the respondent believes that this is the intention behind the respondent’s
application to remove D from the applicant’s care that must be considered seriously.
[24] The final complicating factor is that the respondent is a clinical psychologist, raising
concerns that she may have been able to leverage her own contacts and reputation
within the industry to secure D’s removal and to justify her limiting D’s access to the
applicant.
[25] It is not known what relationship the respondent has with Ms. Kriel , if any, but this also
needs to be investigated as I have my doubts about Ms. Kriel’s objectivity. This is
needs to be investigated as I have my doubts about Ms. Kriel’s objectivity. This is
particularly so as the day that I had directed the respondent to file her answering
affidavit, Ms. Kriel so happened to file a report that she served on the parties clearly
supporting the respondent. That report was obviously then annexed by the respondent
to her answering affidavit. I have little doubt that it was solicited by the respondent.
[26] Apart from my reservations expressed in the paragraph above, these were all factors
bearing upon my mind when I first considered the matter before me as well as the
circumstances under which the contempt application had been brought that served
before Kuny J.
[27] My suspicions about Ms. Kriel’s objectively arose subsequently.
[28] But I must point out at this stage that in her answering affidavit in the matter before
me, the respondent stated that her intention when seeking an Order from the High
Court on 18 July 2025, was to provide and temporary safe and stable environment for
D while the applicant sought rehabilitation and medical care. During argument her
counsel has assured me that she has no intention of retaining D in her care
permanently.
My interview with D
[29] With this background in mind, I interviewed D at my chambers. Seldom have I ever
seen such a sad and tormented child. Despite this, he was forthright and honestly
related the events that disturbed him about the applicant (who I will in this section refer
to as his mother where appropriate) as well has his preference regarding his primary
residence. He, to my mind, had a sufficient level of maturity and understanding of the
situation that befell him to enable me to take the preference he expressed seriously.
[30] D informed me about the events that transpired the evening prior to his being removed
from the applicant’s care, that substantially confirmed those relayed to me by the
applicant herself, save for her level of inebriation. He also told me that when the
applicant is inebriated, she is totally irrational, and that this upsets him. He was clearly
traumatised by the fact that the applicant had thrown a hard object at his grandmother,
with whom they were then living.
[31] D also indicated that despite his at one time indicating to Ms. Kriel that he wished to
return to live with the applicant, the past events yet to be relayed in this judgment, had
made him change his mind and he felt that at present, he would prefer to stay with the
respondent.
[32] D admitted that he had complained to his mother about the respondent (who I will also
in this section refer to as his aunt) being too strict and locking him in his room, and
in this section refer to as his aunt) being too strict and locking him in his room, and
admitted to having tried to run away twice (if not more times), but explained that he
was rebelling against the limitations placed upon him by his aunt, that he understood,
in retrospect, were reasonable. Obviously when he was angry with his aunt, he said he
would complain to his mother and elicit her sympathy. A good example is when after D
experienced severe bullying at school and the respondent nevertheless wished D to
attend school, he called the applicant and she informed him that he did not need to go
to school. This has resulted in D spending an inordinate amount of time absent from
school.
[33] It is of concern that this is the second school at which D has experienced severe
bullying and it appears that his current school has been unable to resolve the situation,
requiring that his placement at a third school is now being considered.
[34] D relayed to me that the difficulties he experienced at the first-mentioned school
started after the applicant had been abusive towards the parents of some of the friends
that he had made, resulting in them telling their children not to be friends with him. He
blamed his mother and expressed resentment at having lost the few friends that he
had made.
[35] But, what distressed D the most was that the applicant had on several occasions
arrived at the respondent’s home with the police stating that the respondent was
keeping D there against his will and had neglected to care for him in allowing him to
self-harm that amounted to child abuse. She has also arrived during the night with an
ambulance to collect D in view of his self-harming and has also laid criminal charges
against the respondent for child abuse, neglect, and I believe kidnapping. I must
emphasise, however, that I have not had sight of any of these criminal proceedings.
My interview with D’s psychiatrist
[36] With D’s permission I also consulted with his psychiatrist, Dr. A. Swart. She had been
assigned to D after he had been admitted to a therapeutic clinic following reports of his
self-harming by the school. She, too, was extremely concerned about D and his mental
and psychiatric well -being and explained that his condition was such that he required
to be admitted to the clinic and be medicated. This has been the cause of great
consternation by the applicant who has decried the fact that her consent, as D’s
mother, was not first obtained and refuses to accept that D requires any medication or
therapeutic intervention. This has caused her to report the said p sychiatrist and
therapeutic intervention. This has caused her to report the said p sychiatrist and
several other therapists who D has seen without her consent to the Health
Professional Council of South Africa (HSPA) and/or other relevant supervisory and
disciplinary bodies.
[37] In the applicant’s view, all D needs is to be returned to her care, where he had
previously been happy and well -adjusted and did not need medication or therapeutic
interventions.
[38] There can be no doubt that D’s current mental state requires urgent intervention and
investigation. This must include a careful and balanced assessment as to why D’s
mental state has deteriorated so significantly since he was removed from the
applicant’s care and placed into the care of the respondent, as well as the role played
by both the applicant and the respondent, if any, in his substantial mental deterioration.
[39] I requested Ms. Swart to refer D to a therapist, that she said D urgently required. I also
requested that she refer me to a therapist skilled in reintegration therapy that I felt was
essential for the contact arrangements between the applicant and D to resume on a
normalised basis.
[40] I reported my findings and recommendations in this regard to the parties at a resumed
hearing. The applicant was resistant to my approach and bemoaned her having to
spend any more money on therapist when she had already been forced to spend
R130 000.00 on the supervised access arranged by KidsBuzz . She requested that the
Family Advocate or FAMSA perform the reintegration therapy. This is a request that I
have considered seriously.
[41] I am alive to the fact that the cost of having access to D through KidsBuzz has been of
serious financial impediment to the applicant. I am also mindful that the applicant has
lost faith in Ms. Kriel who she feels is biased against her. It would thus not be fruitful or
fair to the applicant to insist that Ms. Kriel manage the process of reintegration
between the applicant and D and that she be forced to pay half of these expenses . I,
however, accept that the applicant has in all likelihood not met her obligations.
[42] What I thus have in mind as Upper Guardian of D is that D be referred for therapy with
the clinical psychologist as advised by Dr. swart and that the applicant, D and the
respondent attend reintegration therapy with a neutral but recommended therapist.
respondent attend reintegration therapy with a neutral but recommended therapist.
This is to cater for the applicant’s loss of faith in Ms. Kriel’s objectivity.
The interim access arrangements made by me
[43] After consulting with D and Dr. Swart, I directed that the applicant be permitted to have
access to D every Saturday from 1pm to 3pm at a venue chosen by D , but that this
access still be supervised by a social worker from KidsBuzz . This I hoped would be an
interim arrangement pending successful reintegration therapy that would allow the
access to be unsupervised ultimately.
[44] I must add that my proposed access arrangement was made after extensive
engagement with D during my interview with him . At first D was reluctant to agree to
having any access with the applicant, who he indicated bombarded him with guilt
provoking messages that caused him to block her from having contact with him. He
also stated that he did not wish to continue with the access at KidsBuzz as it was too
long and he had nothing to say to the applicant and generally just slept. I was
extremely concerned about this and surmised that this was due to the unnatural
circumstances under which he had been forced to have access to the applicant, in an
unnatural environment supervised by a social worker , for 3.5 hours , as had been
ordered by the Magistrate in the Children’s Court. While this may be suitable in a
normal environment, it was totally inappropriate in a highly restricted, unnatural and
supervised environment at kidsBuzz’ offices during which any mother and child would
be hard pressed to think of things to do and talk about for 3.5 hours.
[45] After a great deal of persuasion, I was able to impress upon D that it was equally in his
interests to have access to his mother as it was to her to have access to him . I
persuaded D that should this access take place in a more normal environment that he
could choose, and at which he and his mum could do fun activities together and/or go
out and have lunch, I was sure that the time that they spent together would improve. It
was apparent that D felt a great deal of alienation from his mother that I told him was
necessary to repair. I stressed that he did not need to choose between his mother and
his aunt and that I was sure that he loved them both and they loved him.
[46] D finally agreed to try and see the applicant the coming Saturday but requested that I
limit the access to two hours.
[47] D then chose a shopping complex at which to exercise access to the applicant the
following day, that was Saturday 16 May 2026.
following day, that was Saturday 16 May 2026.
The events that have transpired since the applicant has been granted access to D outside of
the KidsBuzz environment
[48] On Saturday 16 May 2026, D reported to me during his visit with the applicant that the
visit was going very well.
[49] On Thursday 21 May 2026, D indicated that he wished to see his mother on 23 May
2026 at a different shopping complex, but still wanted to limit the visit to 2 hours.
[50] On Monday 25 May 2026, D reported to me that the visit on 23 May 20026 had gone
very well; indeed the best it has had since he and the applicant have had visits before.
[51] Needless to say, this progress was excellent news to me.
[52] However, on Wednesday 27 May 2026, D messaged me to inform me that the
applicant had bombarded him with messages the previous evening about mothers and
sons, and more particularly , the duty of a son to look after his mother according to
Islam. He forwarded me 45 Instagram reels sent to him by the applicant. He told me
that he had been upset by the reels as he felt that his mother was trying to guilt-trip
him again. He also forwarded me voice notes from his mother that he said reminded
him of how the applicant used to swear at him and his grandmother when she was
drunk. It was apparent to me that when intoxicated the applicant has very little impulse
control and fails to understand how distressing the incessant messages she sends are
to D.
[53] The result was that D blocked his mother on his phone again and asked that he not be
forced to see his mother the upcoming Saturday 30 May 2026. He informed me that
even during the early hours of Saturday morning, the applicant was continuing to send
Instagram reels to him.
[54] Although I instructed my registrar to communicate to the parties that D wished to
cancel the scheduled visit, she did not relay this and both the applicant and the
respondent assumed that D was obliged to proceed with the visit as I had previously
directed. D thus contacted me, distressed that his mother had not been informed that
their visit had been cancelled. Ultimately, the visit did not proceed.
[55] On Sunday 31 May 2026, D again contacted me and sent me screenshots of the
messages that he was receiving from the applicant. He said she was fighting with him
on the call and calling the respondent a “dijal”, which he explained was basically Satin
on the call and calling the respondent a “dijal”, which he explained was basically Satin
in Islam. The applicant apparently told D that it was not his fault that the respondent
was teaching him wrong, and “ may Allah have mercy swt.”The applicant told D that
she had raised him “better than this ,” that his aunt was manipulating him and making
him “throw his mother away.”
[56] The applicant continued:
“If you only knew the blessing of a mother, you would run far away from her. This is not
Islam. My son open your eyes before it’s too late. She is wanting to destroy us or bond
and yourself. How will you feel one day if something happens to me… People cry for
their mothers begging for 1 second. It’s not your fault but she is teaching you wrong.
Trust me you don’t want to regret later every tear that your mother cries . It shakes the
throne of allah swt. That’s the power of a mothers du’aa.”
[57] The applicant proceeded to text:
“If you knew how your mother prays for you and how I worry how my heart hurts every
second of every day, how I would give my last breathe for you to be happy. Only when
you lose a mother you understand how protected you were because of your mother’s
prayer. Its only when you lose a mother that you know her value. Don’t let her give
your jannah away. You are Muslim , even Christian’s hold onto their mother like gold.
Wake up my son please. No D this is enough now.”
[58] The applicant continued in this vein relentlessly. She indicated that she felt abused as
she did everything to the best of her ability for D , that this was not right and he had to
stand up for justice. She said if he did not want anything to do with her, this would not
help, that even his aunt would not treat her own mother like this , that his aunt had
nevertheless encouraged D to throw his mother on the street. She stressed that she
had given birth to him and raised him and sacrificed her life for him and still would
because she loved him - but levelled a veiled threat if he thought this was a game and
reiterated that enough was enough.
[59] The applicant then sent the following messages:
“Let me know when you are ready to come home. I love you. If you genuinely feel like
Yumna is treating you right and you don’t want a mother or my love, then allah swt
have mercy. But that won’t change my life, it will destroy the little we have. Think for
yourself my angel. I have been running up and down being abused financially all I do is
for you. You need to learn respect for me. I am not a person on the street. I gave birth
for you. You need to learn respect for me. I am not a person on the street. I gave birth
to you. I love you. Even if you are not with me I never manipulate you. You are not a
possession. We are in the end of times. If qiyaamat comes can you be ok, knowing
these were our last words . No -one can replace a mother. After aallah swt and the
prophet saw it was your mother , that is better than jihad even…If you harm your
mother you harm yours elf…I have nothing to hide but of you want to live forever by
Yumna and throw your mother away, so so.”
[60] After this, D blocked the applicant again.
[61] After receiving these extremely concerning messages, I nevertheless approached D
and tried to explain why I felt that his mother was behaving like this and that I could
see that she was now desperate, as since he was removed from her care, she had
only had two normal visits with him and now he was refusing to see her again. I felt
that if he would agree to see his mother and try and explain how he feels when she
sends these relentless guilt provoking messages, perhaps they could re-set their
relationship again.
[62] In my view, denying the applicant access to D again and leaving this in his hands, was
driving the applicant to distraction and provoking this extreme outpouring of
uncontrolled and unbridled emotion by the applicant. I explained to D that it must have
been very hard for his mother to hear from me at the resumed hearing that he had
expressed the preference to remain with the respondent and that the applicant was in
the need of therapy herself and that his mother had, albeit understandably, become
unhinged.
[63] D then unblocked the applicant but he reported to me, soon hereafter, that his mother
just then proceeded to send incessant messages in a similar vein to him.
[64] On 2 June 2026, D informed me that the applicant had called him and told him that she
was at the police station as she intended laying criminal charges against his aunt. She
stressed that she was seeking justic e as was her human right as the respondent had
harmed her and abused her rights. The applicant informed D that he could stay with
her or with his grandmother, making it clear to him that he could no longer live with the
respondent because she was going to be arrested. D became very concerned that he
was going to be forcefully removed from his aunt. The applicant then continued to
inform D that his aunt had kidnapped his cat and that she had tried to put her in a
hospital that meant she could not live at her home for two months.
hospital that meant she could not live at her home for two months.
[65] On 4 June 2026, D messaged me again and indicated that he did not feel that his
mother was in a good mental state and he would prefer not to have to visit her that
weekend. He reported that his aunt was going to take him away to the beach so that
he could calm down after the prior events.
[66] On Monday 8 June 2026, D again messaged me to inform me that he had called his
mother following his time away and had tried to be positive towards her again, but she
had accused him of lying, which caused them to have a huge argument and resulted in
him blocking his mother on his phone again. I tried to persuade D to try and reconcile
with his mother yet again. He was reluctant to do so as he felt that the barrage of
Instagram posts and messages would continue. He said, however, that if the applicant
“behaved” that week he would reconsider his stance.
[67] On Tuesday 9 June 2026, D messaged me to tell me that he was at the hospital as he
had fractured his finger. He said that his mother had accompanied them to the
hospital after having been requested by his aunt to consent to her taking him to the
hospital. Apparently the day before this , and prior to accompanying D and his aunt to
the hospital, the applicant had been polite and collegial to both him and his aunt.
[68] However, once at the hospital, D told me that he noticed that his mother’s lips were
red, as they always were after she had been drinking. D relayed to me that while he
was being examined by a nurse, his mother told the nurse that he cuts himself, that he
had been kidnapped and this was child abuse. He sent me a video of his mother, who
was again out of control , screaming at his aunt. The applicant thereafter levelled the
same allegations to the doctor examining D and elicited their help to remove him from
the respondent.
[69] D then sent me a voice note to explain how his mother had sworn at his aunt in front
of everyone at the hospital and had threatened to press charges against her . He
explained that he and his aunt had ended up having to run to the car and drive away.
[70] Hereafter, D conveyed to me that he was afraid that the police would come and arrest
his aunt. He informed me the following day that his aunt’s attorneys had contacted the
police and explained the situation and so the police, in his words, had “backed off”.
[71] On Thursday 11 June 2026, I contacted D and asked how he felt about seeing his
mother that Saturday 13 June 2026 as I felt that if the applicant had access to D again,
this may help to normalise things and help calm his mother down.
this may help to normalise things and help calm his mother down.
[72] On Friday 12 June 2026, D messaged me to say that after what had transpired at the
hospital, he did not want to see his mother on Saturday 13 June 2026, but that he
would try again the following week.
[73] On Saturday 13 June 2026, I received a desperate call from D telling me that his
mother was at his aunt’s house with the police and that they were banging at the door
demanding entry. He was terrified that the police would arrest his aunt and remove him
from her care and place him in a place of safety . He later explained to me that the
police had served documents on his aunt requiring her to attend court. I am unaware
of the nature of these documents.
[74] I again explained to D that his refusal to see his mother was driving her crazy, but he
said if he had to see her, he felt this would make things worse as she is “sometimes
crazy”.
[75] By this stage, it was abundantly clear to me that despite my best intentions to assist
the applicant to have access to her son under normal conditions , that I could no longer
case manage this matter to the extent that I had as it was requiring my constant
intervention and expertise that I did not have. It became plain to me that I urgently
needed to write a judgment referring the parties to the experts who had been referred
to me to provide the requisite support and therapy to D and the essential reintegration
therapy to the applicant, the respondent and to D.
[76] Sadly, I was forced to realise that w hat had started so positively had now degenerated
to the point where I could not, in my capacity as the Upper Guardian of D , continue to
try and manage the extremely volatility of the applicant and her inability to control her
reckless impulsivity.
[77] The applicant’s inability to control her emotions and reckless impulsivity is not new and
is only made worse when the applicant is under the influence of alcohol. Ms Kriel
reports that the applicant arrived at his school, Newton House, with an ambulance
while drunk and screaming and attempted to gain access to the school because she
had learnt that D was cutting himself. In her report dated 21 May 2026, Ms. Kriel
reports that the respondent had informed her that D had experienced exposure to
erratic behaviour, substance abuse, conflict, inconsistent caregiving and possible
neglect while in the applicant’s care.
[78] Ms. Kriel also reported that following her interviews wi th D that he had “described
feeling emotionally overwhelmed, “in the middle” of the family conflict, and uncertain
feeling emotionally overwhelmed, “in the middle” of the family conflict, and uncertain
about whom to trust. Across multiple interviews, the child consistently reported
concerns regarding [the applicant’s] alcohol use, emotional dysregulation, aggression,
verbal conflict, late-night behaviour, and instability, including incidents of shouting,
threats of suicide, violent outbursts, and exposure to unsafe situations.”
[79] Ms. Kriel also attached reams and reams of WhatsApp messages sent to D, some of
which D sent to me and others in a similar v ein to those D forwarded to me. She also
included intimidating messages between the applicant and a social worker in her
practice. The transcripts of the conversation between D, Ms. Kriel and the applicant
regarding her attending at the premises in the middle of the night with paramedics to
determine his well-being as well as her attending at the Clinic where D was undergoing
treatment on 11 March 2026 is also most concerning. That is not to say that D’s self-
harming is not concerning to me. It is and is the reason why I wish to refer D to a
therapist and the family for reintegration therapy.
[80] I do hope that the applicant will realise when reading this judgment that she, too,
urgently requires therapy should she wish to be reintegrated with D and, hopefully, one
day regain custody of him. This is a two-way street.
Conclusion
[81] I have relayed the details of the communications between the applicant and D set out
above as I feel that the content of these communications are essential to D’s and the
applicant’s therapy. It is my intention that the content of this judgment be conveyed to
Ms Kriel as well as the further therapists I am mindful to refer D and the parties to.
[82] Despite what has been set out by me in this judgment, the respondent’s answering
affidavit and Ms Kriel’s report dated 21 May 2026 regarding the applicant’s highly
inappropriate conduct, I continue to feel that on the facts presented to me, there may
not have been a proper basis for taking the drastic step of removing D from the
applicant’s care without trying to introduce less severe supportive remedies.
[83] The applicant understandably feels wronged and unheard. She has also written to me
to complain about my not writing a judgment sooner and making it a court order that
she be granted access to D as directed by me. She has also issued a veiled threat to
remove me as the judge in the proceedings.
[84] I appreciate fully that the applicant is now desperate and is prepared to take whatever
measures she can think of to secure the return of D to her care. She feels huge anger
measures she can think of to secure the return of D to her care. She feels huge anger
and resentment towards the respondent and has made it plain that should it be
decided that D should not be returned to her care at this stage, she would prefer to
having D placed in foster care on an interim basis provided that D is immediately
removed from the respondent’s care.
[85] Sadly for me, emotions are now so heightened and the situation has become so
explosive that I cannot responsibly continue to manage the access arrangements and
must temporarily delegate my powers and duties as Upper Guardian of D to D’s
psychiatrist, the therapist that I intend to refer D to, as well as the reintegration
therapist that I intend to Order that the par ties undergo therapy with for a period of 8
weeks. In view of the fact that I am mindful of the costs of this therapy, I have
recommended that should the parties require further reintegration therapy beyond 8
weeks, that the parties be referred to FAMSA for ongoing therapy.
[86] It is hoped that after some weeks of therapy, the applicant will learn how to better
manage her emotions and conduct and the respondent will appreciate how desperate
the removal of D from the applicant’s care at her instance has made the applicant feel.
As a psychologist herself, the respondent must appreciate how further restricting the
applicant’s access to D will serve only to further derail the applicant and cause her to
behave progressively more and more impulsively and uncontrollably. The respondent
should foster reintegration with the applicant and be cautious not to cause parental
alienation. To do so is clearly in D’s best interests, and ultimately is also in her best
interests.
[87] I implore upon the therapists appointed to bear an open mind when evaluating the
facts and circumstances of this case and in formulating reintegration guidelines that
are fair and that foster normal parent-child relations to the point where, hopefully in the
not too distant future, D can again be reintegrated with his mother and perhaps , even
be returned to her care, should this be found to be in his best interests.
[88] I also direct the therapists appointed to please consider the role played in the removal
of D from the applicant’s care in the deterioration in his mental well -being and the
reason for his self-harming.
[89] Ms. Kriel has recommended that the investigation directed by the Children’s Court be
completed and that she submit her final report to such court for finalisation of the
matter.
completed and that she submit her final report to such court for finalisation of the
matter.
[90] I nevertheless intend to retain a measure of judicial control over all decisions taken
regarding D’s future care and contact with the applicant as his Upper Guardian. I will
thus order that I be kept abreast of the proceedings in the Children’s Court by the
respondent’s attorneys, copying the applicant, and that I be furnished with a copy of
Ms. Kriel’s final report that she has been required to provide to such court by 7 July
2026. I also intend to direct that D’s treating therapist and psychiatrist, as well as the
reintegration therapist I intend to refer the parties to provide confidential reports to me
on the progress made within 12 weeks of the delivery of this judgment and order.
[91] I am satisfied that provided D receives the required therapy and psychiatric support
and that the parties undergo the mandatory reintegration therapy to be ordered by me,
D will not be in danger and his self-harming and suicidal ideation will be monitored
appropriately. It hoped that as the reintegration therapy progresses and the parties are
able to communicate more appropriately in the interests of D, the present heightened
tensions will diminish and D’s mental well-being will improve dramatically.
[92] While the proceedings are pending in the Children’s Court, it is inappropriate and
unnecessary that I remove D from the respondent’s care at this stage, particularly as
those proceedings will recommence on 7 July 2026 and I am satisfied that, with the
systems I intend to put in place, D will be safe in the interim.
[93] I therefore intend to postpone the current application for the removal of D from the
respondent’s care pending the outcome of the application currently pending before the
Children’s Court, but direct that the applicant’s access to D be both encouraged,
fostered and facilitated by Ms. Kriel in earnest, with a view to repairing the relationship
between D and the applicant in D’s best interest.
[94] It is highly recommended that the applicant undergo therapy herself to ensure that she
can provide a stable and secure environment for D with the ultimate goal of having D
returned to her care.
Order
[95] In the result, I make the following order:
(1). The main application is postponed sine die pending the outcome of the reintegration
therapy that is ordered below and the outcome of the proceedings currently pending
before the Randburg Children’s Court.
(2). D is to continue with his therapy with Dr Alicia Swart.
(3). D is to undertake therapy with Ms Fran Webster (HPCSA Reg number: PS0143316);
Contact details : 0[…] ; email: s[…] ; G[…] Floor, Building […] , F[…] M[… ] O[…] P[...],
Contact details : 0[…] ; email: s[…] ; G[…] Floor, Building […] , F[…] M[… ] O[…] P[...],
C[…] R[…] Street and M[…] , F[…] , for such period of time as is determined by such
therapist or such other therapist recommended by Dr Swart or D is referred to by Ms
Webster.
(4). The applicant, the respondent and D are ordered to attend twelve (12) sessions of
reintegration therapy with Dr. Giada Del Fabbro at Unit […] , T[…] V[…] M[…] C[…] ,
1[…] 7[…] Ave, P […] N[…] ; cell: +2[…] ; email : d[…] the manner so prescribed by
such therapist.
(5). If after 12 sessions, further reintegration therapy is recommended, the parties are to
be referred to FAMSA by Dr. Del Fabbro to continue with this therapy as a cost
saving measure, unless other arrangements may be made for reintegration therapy
to continue.
(6). Each of the therapists so appointed, and FAMSA if applicable, are directed to report
to me within 16 weeks of this Order on the progress made with D’s therapy and the
reintegration therapy , whereafter, the parties are entitled to approach me to seek
directions as to the further conduct of this matter.
(7). The respondent’s attorneys are directed to keep me appraised of the developments
in the pending investigation into D’s best interests before the Randburg Children’s
Court, copying the applicant on all such communications.
(8) The applicant and the respondent are ordered to each pay half of the cost of the
aforementioned therapies not covered by medical aid.
(8) Ms Kriel is directed to provide me with a copy of her final report to be submitted to the
Children’s Court on 7 July 2026.
(9). All the aforementioned therapists and the Children’s Court are to be provided with a
copy of this judgment by the respondent’s attorneys, copying the applicant.
(10). No order is made as to costs.
_________________________
S.M WENTZEL-THOMPSON
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHAN
HEARING:
Date of the hearing: 14 May 2026 and 1 June 2026
Date of the judgment: 23 June 2026
APPEARANCES
For the applicant: In person
For the respondent: LCM Morland instructed by Sheralyn LEA Pieterse Attorneys