The Western Cape High Court ruled that a mother can have primary custody over her toddler after her estranged husband simply took the child from her.
Image: File
A husband who took their toddler child away from his estranged wife’s care as she is under the care of a psychiatrist for anxiety told his wife that the only medication she needed was the gospel.
He also controlled her monthly paycheck, as he kept her bank card. The Western Cape High Court was told that even if she wanted to buy a loaf of bread, she had to fully explain to him why she needed the money.
The mother turned to the court to get access to her child, as the father took him away when she sought psychiatric treatment for her anxiety. He claimed that because she was a former drug addict, she was still on drugs.
Judge Daniel Thulare, who awarded primary custody of the child, 21 months, to the mother, described the husband as cruel and a law unto himself.
The parties met at a rehabilitation centre in 2015 while both independently underwent treatment for drug abuse. They married in 2018, but they are now estranged. The husband holds the view that while he is fully recovered from drug abuse, the wife is not.
The child ordinarily lived with the mother until she was involved in a vehicle accident. Without any basis, he alleged that this happened because she was under the influence of substances. He subsequently took the child away from her after she sought psychiatric help to cope with the trauma of, among others, the accident.
The wife told the court that her husband preferred prayers and church counselling by people with no qualifications in counselling and not professional and expert intervention.
He, on the other hand, said that he recommended that she see a church counsellor because of his strong faith.
The wife, meanwhile, said the husband told her that the only medication she needed was the gospel. The court was also told that the husband controlled every aspect of the wife’s life. For instance, although her salary was paid into her account, he held the bank card and internet banking code.
She rarely had access to her own money. She could not make any decision on what to spend with her own salary.
In the unlikely event that the husband would allow her to buy bread and milk for the house, she had to present him with a slip as he insisted to see whether she did not purchase anything he did not consent to her buying.
The husband did not deny the economic control. According to him, he controlled her economically because she was bad with her finances.
“This is the man who was himself sequestrated and could not take out credit in his own name,” the judge remarked.
Judge Thulare said it is clear the husband contributed to the emotional and psychological challenges that the applicant suffered, from which he now sought to gain an advantage. He hailed the wife for seeking professional help for her problems.
As to the fact that the husband simply took the child away and never told the mother where he was, the judge said this was simply cruel.
“The cruelty was not innocent. It was calculated to drive the applicant up the psychiatric and psychological hill, for her struggles to get at the top to be used against her in the care of the child.”
Following an investigation by the family advocate into the mother’s suitability to take care of the child, the judge ordered that the child be returned to the mother.
zelda.venter@inl.co.za