Mother given 12-month jail sentence for contempt of court after refusing father access to his child

A mother has been sentenced to 12 months in prison  for contempt of court after she repeatedly denied the father of her child access and contact, in defiance of two court orders.

In a decision issued earlier in January, the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria found the woman in contempt of two court orders from 2021 and 2022.

Judge Portia Phahlane sentenced the mother to 12 months in jail and directed her to report to the Pretoria Central police station within 24 hours to begin her sentence at Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Services for women.

Judge Phahlane also ordered that the father be granted immediate access to the child. The case stems from an initial court order on August 4, 2021, which the mother "deliberately disobeyed."

That order required the father to pay R15,000 per month in maintenance and granted him joint parental rights and responsibilities under the Children's Act. He was also given "reasonable contact with the child every alternate weekend and reasonable consultation and contact up to two hours per day."

Despite these orders, the mother continued to refuse compliance, leading the father to seek a contempt of court declaration. On June 27, 2022, the High Court granted this application, and Judge Mokhine Mosopa imposed a 30-day imprisonment for contempt of the initial order.

Judge Phahlane noted that the latest application was unopposed and cited evidence showing the father’s repeated attempts to contact his child following the court orders. The judge emphasized that the mother’s refusal to comply with the orders demonstrated clear disregard for judicial authority and the child's rights.

Phahlane criticized the mother for her willful disobedience, stating that contempt of court involves not just disobedience but a blatant disrespect for judicial authority. She condemned the mother’s actions as a severe violation of both the court's orders and the child's rights.

The judge also commented on the conduct of the mother's attorney, noting that the attorney either provided inadequate advice or aligned with the mother’s unlawful behavior. Despite this, Phahlane maintained that the mother’s actions constituted intentional defiance of the court’s lawful orders.