A LAW expert has said that a recent ruling by the KZN High Court which ordered the total forfeiture of patrimonial benefits against a husband has sent “a strong and necessary message that the courts will not allow an abusive spouse to benefit from their misconduct”.

The court found that the defendant in the matter had engaged in a sustained pattern of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse, and handed down a ruling which effectively stripped the defendant of any claim to the joint estate, including the family home and the plaintiff’s pension interests.

In this instance, the court found that the husband’s lack of financial contribution, coupled with his abusive behaviour and refusal to comply with court orders, justified a full forfeiture order.

The judgment further extended to the termination of the father’s parental responsibilities and rights.

The court heard harrowing evidence of the father failing to administer life-saving medication to his ill child and abandoning contact for nearly a decade. Consequently, the court found him unfit, granting the mother full parental care and guardianship to ensure the surviving child’s stability and safety.

Commenting on this ruling, family law expert Susan Abro, the founder of Susan Abro Attorney,  said the court’s order “reinforces that marriage, particularly in community of property, is not a shield for unfair advantage where there has been clear abuse, neglect, or disregard for legal obligations”.

In its order, the court stated that in terms of Section 9(1) and (7) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1970, read with Section 9 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, “the defendant forfeits, in favour of the plaintiff, his entitlement to share in the patrimonial benefits of the marriage in community of property”.

Abro said in reaching its ruling, the court considered three factors, which are:

1. The duration of the marriage
2. The reasons for its breakdown, and
3. Any substantial misconduct

“It looks at whether one party contributed meaningfully, financially or otherwise, whether their behaviour makes it unjust for them to share equally,” said Abro.

Also read: Family Day: Protecting your loved ones for every life stage

She said such rulings where total forfeiture in divorce proceedings are ordered are “relatively rare”, with courts exercising caution when applying them “typically only in serious cases involving clear misconduct, such as abuse, or where there is a clear imbalance in contribution”.

For a court to order that parental rights should be terminated entirely, a “very high” threshold should be met, said Abro.

“The court must be satisfied that termination is in the best interests of the child and that the parent is unfit due to serious neglect, abuse, or abandonment,” she said.

What termination of parental responsibilities and rights generally means, Abro explained, is that the parent in question is deprived of “decision-making rights, care and contact”.

 “But it does not automatically remove the duty to pay maintenance. Financial responsibilities usually remain. The duty to maintenance is the child`s right and cannot be terminated, save with a specific Order of Court. In this case the defendant’s responsibility to pay maintenance was referred to the maintenance court for decision and therefore was not terminated,” said Abro.

Abro pointed out that the termination of parental rights “can be challenged or varied if circumstances materially change”.

“But this is not easily done. The court will again prioritise the child’s best interests,” said Abro.

Abro said this case and ruling underscores how the country’s courts are more and more “taking a firm stance on both financial fairness in divorce and the protection of children”.

“It highlights the importance of documenting abuse, non-compliance, and financial contributions when approaching the court,” commented Abro.

For more from the Highway Mail, follow us on Facebook , X and Instagram. You can also check out our videos on our YouTube channel or follow us on TikTok.

Click to subscribe to our newsletter here