please foward my email on
to as many as you can to create awareness
i sent a second letter for
media publication
can you guys put it out to
all jhb and national media
drakes comments are below
this letter
AN OPEN LETTER TO
MINISTER BRIDGETTE MABANDLA ,[MINISTER OF JUSTICE SOUTH AFRICA]
RE:FAMILY
LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDRENS RIGHTS:
CC: FAMILY
ADVOCATES OFFICE,
SOUTH AFRICAN LAW
REFORM COMMISSION,
SOUTH
AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL,
CENTRE FOR OPEN
DEMOCRACY,
FATHERS 4 JUSTICE
SOUTH AFRICA MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS
TO ALL
INTERNATIONAL F4J/CHILDRENS ACTIVIST GROUPS
Apologies to all for the
length of this email.[IT IS HOWEVER WORTH READING]
THE GIST OF THIS EMAIL
SURROUND THE CHILDRENS ACT IN SOUTH AFRICA, which was intended to
promote,the best interests of child with a view to co-operative shared
parenting and an end to maternal bias, in accordance with the constitution
of SOUTH AFRICA.
A meeting was held with
the OFFICE of the FAMILY ADVOCATE [SOUTH AFRICA], on 22 FEBRUARY 2008,
attended by all principal family advocates, wherein, compliance with the
CHILDREN'S ACT, and the SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTION, was promised
and an end to admitted
previous practice of maternal preference, would immediately occur,
in favor of
CHILDRENS BEST INTERESTS,
Promotion of co-operative
parenting [joint and equal parental rights and responsibilities] ,
and the additional
strong condemnation of any behavior promoting PARENTAL ALIENATION,
or deliberate
conflict mongering in order to prevent recommendations of equall
parenting i.e.: joint custody would occur.
THE IMMEDIATE URGENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POLICY WAS UNDERTAKEN.
The family advocates
office , went further to state that whilst they are prepared to comply with
the spirit and regulations contained in the CHILDRENS ACT, and
constitution, they feared it would take a long time to change the orthodox,
archaic and non progressive anti reform ideologies of some members of
the judiciary.
Regrettably this has
actually turned out to be a false undertaking, with 2 recent
recommendations made by the FAMILY ADVOCATES OFFICE, continuing with
punitive
action and maternal bias,
against fathers for wanting to remain committed to serving their children's
best interests, and rewarding actions encouraging PARENTAL ALIENATION, by
recommending against co-operative parenting, in one case, and actually
decreasing care and contact in another.
These are not isolated
cases, and are reflective of the state of FAMILY LAW in SOUTH AFRICA
THE arguments against
shared parenting, are dispelled by mountains of available research, to
which the FAMILY ADVOCATES OFFICE,appears oblivious.
Take a look at the
extract below from
Shared
Parenting Information Group (SPIG) UK
Shared Parenting should only
occur if the parents agree
Basically it is argued that if
the parents cannot agree there will be a hostile environment which will
affect the children. Clearly there are some cases where this is so, but it
is worth examining the situation closer.
Parents with sole custody orders are not immune
from intense conflict which is witnessed by their children, and there is no
evidence that shared parenting increases that hostility. It could be argued
that any hostility which the children initially experience would be
balanced by the opportunity to continue their relationship with both
parents in a meaningful way.
Denying shared parenting solely because of one
parent's opposition ignores the child's wishes and developmental needs.
There is thus a need
to closely examine parental opposition to shared parenting on a case by
case basis, remembering particularly the UK case of Caffell [1980] where
the courts hoped that shared parenting would bring the parents together to
co-operate for the benefit of the child
The general feeling
amongst the public and members/ supporters of FATHERS 4 JUSTICE SOUTH
AFRICA,[which I have been asked to convey], is one of no confidence in
the present fuctioning and role of the FAMILY ADVOCATES OFFICE, and family
law in SOUTH AFRICA.
F4J in SOUTH AFRICA, has
always engaged in a respectful law abiding manner, with the FAMILY
ADVOCATES OFFICE, and adopted a moderate co-operative activist stance,
whilst lobbying for reform, and acting as a neutral watch dog
over family law cases. We are neither pro dad or anti mum....it is children
first, and their best interests which is the only gold standard.
The vote of no confidence
has resulted in calls for pickets,anti FA lobbying, and general non
compliance or attendance at FAMILY ADVOCATES enquiries, by fathers [this
being a commonly adopted strategy by mothers and some unethical legal
practitioners, to delay cases whilst entrenching PAS].This will be tragic
and drag family law/family advocates functioning to a halt, but many
fathers now feel that they have a better chance of securing their
relationship with their children, outside of the FAMILY ADVOCATES
OFFICE,even if they receive a letter advising the presiding judge of non
compliance, than they do at the hands of the family advocates office, which
continues functioning without established protocols [standard operating
procedures] resulting in no accountability, kangaroo like enquiries, and
non compliance with the constitution.
F4J encourages its
members to continue lobbying for reform,and to continue compliance, and
co-operation, with a heavy heart, whilst awaiting a response from the CHIEF
FAMILY ADVOCATE, MINISTER OF JUSTICE, AND THE VARIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS
ORGANISATIONS, and not to react in an impulsive knee jerk reaction. We are
committed parents, moral law abiding citizens, and our moderate behaviour
reflects on our maturity, and will enhance our standing in lobbying for
reform.
This may appear to be a
contradiction to our vote of no confidence, and our exhausted patience with
the FAMILY LAW SYSTEMATIC STATE SANCTIONED CHILD"ABDUCTION AND
PARENTAL ALIENATION", but we are hopeful that our childrens voices
echoed through our words will bear fruit.
I await
an urgent response from MINISTER MABANDLA, and ADV SEABI, and further
intervention by any civil rights group/ stake-holders in family law.
Help
protect and promote the best interests of all our children affected by
parental separation
FATHERS 4 JUSTICE
SOUTH AFRICA
DR ASIF SULEMAN
[MbChB-NATAL]
 082 777 55 77
 031-312 34 88 /032 944 3769
 0865 165 915
INTENDED RECIPIENTS ONLY.F4J IS
A REGISTERED NGO/NPO ACTIVELY PROMOTING A CHILDS BEST INTERESTS AFTER
PARENTAL SEPERATION.PARENTAL ALIENATION IS CHILD ABUSE.LET OUR KIDS BE THE
WINNERS AND NOT THE PRIZE
|
|
|
-------Original
Message-------
Date: 2008/02/28 01:07:55 PM
Subject: RE: OUTCRY AGAINST FAMILY ADVOCATES OFFICE; REQUEST
FOR INTERVENTION BY MINISTER BRIDGETTE MABANDLA
Hi Asif,
My issue is; Family law needs to look into the issue of
maintenance. Most Mums hang on to the children knowing there is monetary
value to this. As if this is not enough, they continue to alienate Dads
from their children, regardless of the emotional consequences this has on the
children. Most of them do not use the money for the needs of the children but
as a tool to spite their ex husbands. Family law should look into how
maintenance should be administered. As long as the parent with the primary
residence with the children continues to receive maintenance in cash, paid
into their account, the abuse will continue.
Family law needs to develop a way that all maintenance for the
children should go directly where the service or item needed is eg fees
directly to the school, food, clothing in form of vouchers. Payment of cash
into an ex spouse’s bank account should be stopped.
AN OPEN
LETTER TO MINISTER BRIDGETTE MABANDLA ,[MINISTER OF JUSTICE SOUTH AFRICA]
RE:FAMILY
LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDRENS RIGHTS:
CC: FAMILY
ADVOCATES OFFICE,
SOUTH AFRICAN
LAW REFORM COMMISSION,
SOUTH
AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL,
CENTRE FOR
OPEN DEMOCRACY,
FATHERS 4
JUSTICE SOUTH AFRICA MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS
TO ALL
INTERNATIONAL F4J/CHILDRENS ACTIVIST GROUPS
Apologies to all for
the length of this email.[IT IS HOWEVER WORTH READING]
THE GIST OF THIS
EMAIL SURROUND THE CHILDRENS ACT IN SOUTH AFRICA, which was intended to
promote,the best interests of child with a view to co-operative shared
parenting and an end to maternal bias, in accordance with the
constitution of SOUTH AFRICA.
A meeting was held
with the OFFICE of the FAMILY ADVOCATE [SOUTH AFRICA], on 22 FEBRUARY
2008, attended by all principal family advocates, wherein, compliance
with the CHILDREN'S ACT, and the SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTION, was
promised
and an end to
admitted previous practice of maternal preference, would
immediately occur,
in favor of
CHILDRENS BEST INTERESTS,
Promotion of
co-operative parenting [joint and equal parental rights and
responsibilities] ,
and the
additional strong condemnation of any behavior promoting PARENTAL
ALIENATION,
or deliberate
conflict mongering in order to prevent recommendations of equall
parenting i.e.: joint custody would occur.
THE IMMEDIATE URGENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POLICY WAS UNDERTAKEN.
The family advocates
office , went further to state that whilst they are prepared to comply
with the spirit and regulations contained in the CHILDRENS ACT, and
constitution, they feared it would take a long time to change the
orthodox, archaic and non progressive anti reform ideologies of some
members of the judiciary.
Regrettably this has
actually turned out to be a false undertaking, with 2 recent
recommendations made by the FAMILY ADVOCATES OFFICE, continuing with
punitive
action and maternal
bias, against fathers for wanting to remain committed to serving their
children's best interests, and rewarding actions encouraging PARENTAL
ALIENATION, by recommending against co-operative parenting, in one
case, and actually decreasing care and contact in another.
These are not
isolated cases, and are reflective of the state of FAMILY LAW in SOUTH
AFRICA
THE arguments against
shared parenting, are dispelled by mountains of available research, to
which the FAMILY ADVOCATES OFFICE,appears oblivious.
Take a look at the
extract below from the attachment, [appropriate references contained]
Shared Parenting should
only occur if the parents agree
Basically it is argued that
if the parents cannot agree there will be a hostile environment which
will affect the children. Clearly there are some cases where this is
so, but it is worth examining the situation closer.
Parents with sole custody orders are not
immune from intense conflict which is witnessed by their children, and
there is no evidence that shared parenting increases that hostility. It
could be argued that any hostility which the children initially
experience would be balanced by the opportunity to continue their
relationship with both parents in a meaningful way.
Denying shared parenting solely because of
one parent's opposition ignores the child's wishes and developmental
needs.
There is thus a
need to closely examine parental opposition to shared parenting on a
case by case basis, remembering particularly the UK case of Caffell
[1980] where the courts hoped that shared parenting would bring the
parents together to co-operate for the benefit of the child
The general feeling
amongst the public and members/ supporters of FATHERS 4 JUSTICE SOUTH
AFRICA,[which I have been asked to convey], is one of no
confidence in the present fuctioning and role of the FAMILY ADVOCATES
OFFICE, and family law in SOUTH AFRICA.
F4J in SOUTH AFRICA,
has always engaged in a respectful law abiding manner, with the FAMILY
ADVOCATES OFFICE, and adopted a moderate co-operative activist stance,
whilst lobbying for reform, and acting as a neutral watch
dog over family law cases. We are neither pro dad or anti
mum....it is children first, and their best interests which is the only
gold standard.
The vote of no
confidence has resulted in calls for pickets,anti FA lobbying, and
general non compliance or attendance at FAMILY ADVOCATES enquiries, by
fathers [this being a commonly adopted strategy by mothers and some
unethical legal practitioners, to delay cases whilst entrenching
PAS].This will be tragic and drag family law/family advocates
functioning to a halt, but many fathers now feel that they have a
better chance of securing their relationship with their children,
outside of the FAMILY ADVOCATES OFFICE,even if they receive a letter
advising the presiding judge of non compliance, than they do at the
hands of the family advocates office, which continues functioning
without established protocols [standard operating procedures] resulting
in no accountability, kangaroo like enquiries, and non compliance with
the constitution.
F4J encourages its
members to continue lobbying for reform,and to continue compliance, and
co-operation, with a heavy heart, whilst awaiting a response from the
CHIEF FAMILY ADVOCATE, MINISTER OF JUSTICE, AND THE VARIOUS HUMAN
RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS, and not to react in an impulsive knee jerk
reaction. We are committed parents, moral law abiding citizens, and our
moderate behaviour reflects on our maturity, and will enhance our standing
in lobbying for reform.
This may appear to be
a contradiction to our vote of no confidence, and our exhausted
patience with the FAMILY LAW SYSTEMATIC STATE SANCTIONED
CHILD"ABDUCTION AND PARENTAL ALIENATION", but we are hopeful
that our childrens voices echoed through our words will bear fruit.
THE COMMENTS BELOW
ARE SOME OF THE MILDER ONES RECEIVED, BUT ARE REFLECTIVE OF A MAJORITY
VIEW[ and are coincidentally mainly from females],.
Those not in receipt
of all communications are urged to follow the correspondence from
"bottom -up" to get a deeper understanding, of what has
precipated in this email.
I await
an urgent response from MINISTER MABANDLA, and ADV SEABI, and further
intervention by any civil rights group/ stake-holders in family law.
Help
protect and promote the best interests of all our children affected by
parental separation
FATHERS 4
JUSTICE SOUTH AFRICA
Date: 2008/02/27 04:43:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Asif
I am tremendously sadden by this.
The justice system certainly seems to be failing in allowing parents
(regardless of gender) to love and care for their children. It is
tragic that parents feel the need to abuse the system by trying to get
back to their ex partners and therefore indirectly hurting the innocent
victims, which are our children.
Even throughout this unfairness,
we must stand united and persevere in this quest for justice.
In GOD we Trust.
Kind Regards,
Date: 2008/02/27 07:46:50 PM
Subject: Re: i need your comments urgently
|
|
|
|
|
There is overwhelming evidence that the Family Advocates office is
actually instrumental in the harming of many innocent children and
fathers. Whatever good work they are perceived to be doing means nothing
with the ruining of even 1 child’s life, and the with their lack of basic
thought application, holistic and practical case consideration, and their
naïve medieval belief systems, they are responsible for causing
unnecessary grief to hundreds of children and families in South Africa.
Their systematically predictable recommendations are asinine and a
mockery of children’s lives and their basic right to be happy. Every
child has a right to a fair chance to grow into a star, and the F.A
system is ripping away from under them the social structure that is the foundation
they need to grow into normal balanced adults.
I believe a case should be brought against the Family Advocates office
and they should be sued as their is now and has been for a while a solid
case against them for:
- mental
abuse to children
- abuse
to men
- denying
the rights of South African humanity as a whole
- malpractice
- gross
harmful negligence
- responsibility
for the degradation of the lives of children and fathers
- making
a mockery of the the very rights they are charged to protect
The F.A practices stinks of a stubborned sluggishness, and they might as
well be handing out guns instead, because they are slowly killing many
children.
I myself am not a dad, but have a horrible fear of the day if ever it
should arrive where my child's life has to be decided by these dim
witted, poor excuses for professionals.
Date: 2008/02/28 09:38:20 AM
|
|
|
|
![]()
|
Hi Asif
My fight is just beginning so I may not have anything
relevant to say. However I did request joint custody of my daughters when
my ex-wife and I were drafting our settlement agreement. The female
attorney we hired jointly (I was deluded by thinking there would be an
amicable divorce) discouraged this saying it was almost impossible to
achieve. Consequently my ex-wife has full custody.
I believe the function of the family advocate should
therefore extend to protecting all members of the disintegrating family
by insisting on:
The
incomplete and ineffective function of the FA has therefore left me as
nothing more than a slave to my ex-wife. She on the other hand has
continued her life virtually without consequence due to the financial
support she has received from her wealthy family. The saddest part of
this story being that my two daughters have expressed the desire to live
with us equally; I know that if I broach this subject with my ex-wife it
will be rejected as she would lose her financial and emotional hold over
me.
Regards
Wayne Stepanik
Date: 2008/02/28 08:25:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Asif
I know what wayne and raymond are going through as i mentioned to you i
havent seen Falcon in many years.the family advocate that came through you
email called me once and never again.i long to see my baby and his granny
doesn't want me to.As much as mother's have their rights so should father's
be treated the same.
It breaks me that parents can be kept away from their
kids and it's wrong the law needs to wake up honestly.
Even in my case i should have my son with me he is 9 now and really wants
to be with his family.
I pray that Raymond and Wayne get their hearts desire.
God Bless
Kind Regards
Tracey King
Date: 2008/02/27 04:43:59 PM
|
|
|
![]()
|
![]()
|
Hi Asif.
Thanks for your Email.
Quite frankly I am disgusted!!! Unfortunately it seems
(actually it is quite OBVIOUS to me) that the FA are very much still on the
mothers’ side and I feel this is very unfair to say the least, in light of
all the evidence that has been presented. I fail to see how their
decision has been for the good of the child. They seem to be more on
the mother’s side than that of the child.
I really hope that something will be done about this.
I am a mother and can’t believe how such despicable behavior from
other mothers can be supported and endorsed by FA.
Regards,
Monika Hinze
|
|
|
|
![]()
|
![]()
|
MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ADVOCATES OFFICE
Further to our meeting on 22 February 2008, I noted a
strong sense of progressive family law reform spirit amongst the FAMILY
ADVOCATES office , members.
Kindly see the 2 email's below, written to me below.
I obviously and as I made clear in the meeting do
not wish to see any degree of paternal preference, at the same time
it was made clear from the F4J delegation, that behavior reflective of
deliberate PAS or enhanced conflict solely for the purposes of
obstructing co-parenting recommendations would still be tantamount to
rewarding the alienating parent.
Point 4 of my minutes cautioned about such
behavior
F4J is of the opinion that
conflictual behavior is deliberately increased as a practice by
alienating custodial parents to deliberately deny recommendations of
equally parenting/custodialship and as such rewards alienating behavior
.
My further discussion added that even in the most high
conflict of situations research emanating from AUSTRALLIA, NEW ZEALAND
indicated that when theses high conflict parents were forced to work
together ,the deliberate conflict mongering, appeared to subside, and the
children tended to prosper more as opposed to sole custody
Kindly refer to Waynes email in which he states"
Sadly, very sadly the
maternal bias is still very evident .It seems that the maternal
party need only not to agree to joint parenting and this will not be the
case. And will be backed up by the family advocates office.
in terms of
waynes report which I have not seen,but he quotes:'
I quote from point 8.6 in my report.
“THE PLAINTIFF is averse to the idea of co parenting.
This places the child in the middle of a battlefield. As opposed to her
having the comfort and security of a united parental front. “
"the gist of the report
is the Family advocates awarded full parental rights and
responsibilities ,YES everyone you guessed it, to the MOM."
The fact that the new law
does say that anyone obstructing joint custody and is seen as the
perpetuator of acrimony will have the possibility of losing the parenting
rights. Seems like someone forgot about this little section in the act."
his overall summation of his
enquiry is best summised by"
So much for my
proposed parenting plan so much for the new face and stance of the family
advocates and so much for the new children’s act.
The 2nd letter from MORNAYE F4J SOUTH RAND [GP]
refers to a dad , RAYMOND, who was recurrently denied
access, and whose children are victims of PAS, the results of
an enquiry,[ the full report I do not yet possess suggests also a
rewarding of alienating behavior], once again retaining a distinct flavor
of maternal preference and paternal prejudice raises the following
issues:
"
No more holiday sleep out
access for his little girl of 4 until she turns 6.
Previously he had both of
them for alternating holidays.
Reduced week-end time.
Previously he fetched them on a Friday at 14.00 and
had to take the children back
at Sunday 17.30, now only fetch at 17.00 and
They must be back at 16.00 on
a Sunday.
He can not see them in the
week, if he had access to them over previous
week-end. Previously he saw
them every Wednesday from after school.
He is not allowed to
take/fetch them from pre-school. Previously he could do
I am very cautious not to jump to foregone conclusions
and await both reports, before responding to the complaints so as to
ensure, that I bring forward accurate information.
None the less the contents of the email are disturbing
to me, and fly in the face of my email yesterday in which I stated to our
2000 members and supporters,
"
It is indicative of a progressive
reform based agenda adopted by the FA,
and is encouraged and applauded by F4J.
HOWEVER WE DO NEED TO
ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT JUST TRANSLATE INTO A P.R.O EXERCISE BUT
INTO CONCRETE RESULTS, within a reasonable and not protracted time frame."
Before commenting further on these 2 cases I await
internal correspondence from F4J EXCO,
and the complete reports, so as to stay true to the
neutral stance that I have been propagating,
when I state as I recurrently do to our membership,
and I once more quote from yesterdays correspondence"
It is however imperative that
F4J also maintains vigilance over itself, and continue to maintain
a neutral, independent reform based agenda without any gender bias, and
the best interests of the child as its only gold standard, and that there
should never be any hesitancy in promoting research or its watch -dog
role on family law cases brought to our attention, AND TO SPEAK OUT
FEARLESSLY IN MATTERS WE FEEL HAVE NOT SERVED THE CHILDS BEST INTEREST."
In the interim, may I kindly have your comments, and
those of your colleagues on a broad front as to what is the REAL policy
of the FA, and its stance in removal of maternal bias and not rewarding
parents who promote increased conflict solely for the purposes of
preventing co-operative parenting with equal parental rights and
responsibilities, and as to whether your progressive stance has actually
filtered down to your officers, who still appear to be making punitive
reccomendations in the "old spirit "of the FA.
I anxiously await your urgent reply
Date: 2008/02/27 02:00:32 PM
|
|
|
![]()
|
![]()
|
Hi Asif
I have just received the
report from the family advocates office.
Sadly, very sadly the
maternal bias is still very evident .It seems that the maternal
party need only not to agree to joint parenting and this will not be the
case. And will be backed up by the family advocates office.
I quote from point 8.6 in my
report.
“THE PLAINTIFF is averse to
the idea of co parenting. This places the child in the middle of a
battlefield. As opposed to her having the comfort and security of a
united parental front. “
So mom does not like the
idea dad gets screwed. But is seems moms are always right.
I quote again
“There continues to be
acrimony between the parties. The parties have not had counselling in
this regard.”
The mom has on all occasions
dismissed this counselling as requested by myself. I have legal
correspondence to back this up. Even though the FA suggest this
counselling, if the mom does not want it who is going to force her so the
status quo will remain. So dad get screwed again.
Mom promotes acrimony dad
get screwed and in my case I can produce evidence of this in legal
correspondence as recently as December. In the denial of my holiday
access which necessitated me having to go the legal route.
Then they make reference to
what we all know about acrimony regarding parents and the psychologists
reports on this. Making reference to a somewhat confused François de
Marigny which excluded me from one of Cassi assessments and has from day
one not made any reference to the fact that the mom promotes the acrimony.
I quote “joint care” will
further perpetuate the tensions between the parties. A view expressed by
François De Marigny.”
This is the same guy whose
reports were found wanting in the du plessis case.
It is also quite ironic that
it is the same Ms Karrim that was involved in that case as well.
So the gist of the report is
the Family advocates awarded full parental rights and responsibilities
,YES everyone you guessed it, to the MOM.
So much for my proposed
parenting plan so much for the new face and stance of the family
advocates and so much for the new children’s act.
Moms just have to disagree
with the dad and she gets it all. NO change to what we got now.
The fact that the new law
does say that anyone obstructing joint custody and is seen as the
perpetuator of acrimony will have the possibility of losing the parenting
rights. Seems like someone forgot about this little section in the act.
Finally even after my
daughter at the age of 2 asking to stay with me and François report
stating that My daughter sees me as and I quote “main source and
object of love and positive feelings is her father” and further the FA
stating that my daughter said” she indicated that she does not cry for
her mom when she is with her dad. However, she does cry for her dad when
with her mom”
Additionally they
acknowledge the strong bond between me and my daughter but still maintain
primary residence with the mom and sole parental rights to the mom.
The new act means nothing to
the family advocate’s office and they have again taken the normal route.
THE MATERNAL BIAS despite the fact that the mom has been obstructive.
I will be making this report
available as soon as I get it via email or on electronic format.
To say I am highly disappointed
with this report is an underestimate. Because I left those offices
feeling positive about what was said and indicated to me only to have the
same stance put forward.
-------Original Message-------
Date: 2008/02/26 11:50:35 AM
I've noted contents of your e
mails but believe
the FA is only about lip service. I hoped that the FA
will not be gender
biased and believed that once you have a parenting
plan drawn up the chances
are great that the FA will approve and make favourable
recommendations.
After I spoke to Raymond yesterday, I am not so sure
anymore,and to tell
other Dads to ask the FA to intervene in their cases.I
was under the
impression that the FA favours the new Act and give
more access/visitation
We have a dad by the name of Raymond here in JHB. He
has two beautiful girls
He got divorced under the old act but more often than
not his ex denies him
He has filed 4 x contempt of court order, but as you
all know the police did
He applied for a variation order on visitation/access
rights and both him
and his ex were at the FA office in Pretoria on
Monday. One hour session
He got the FA report/recommendations back yesterday
and his
access/visitation rights has decreased. He said that
him and ex agreed in FA
office on a lot of visitation rights and this was
never recorded or put into
No more holiday sleep out access for his little girl
of 4 until she turns 6.
Previously he had both of them for alternating
holidays.
Reduced week-end time. Previously he fetched them on a
Friday at 14.00 and
had to take the children back at Sunday 17.30, now
only fetch at 17.00 and
they must be back at 16.00 on a Sunday.
He can not see them in the week, if he had access to
them over previous
week-end. Previously he saw them every Wednesday from
after school.
He is not allowed to take/fetch them from pre-school.
Previously he could do
What can he do, who can he go and see, can he appeal
against this outcome.
Obviously his ex would also have received this report.
|
DR ASIF
SULEMAN [MbChB-NATAL]
082
777 55 77
031-312
34 88 /032 944 3769
0865
165 915
INTENDED
RECIPIENTS ONLY.F4J IS A REGISTERED NGO/NPO ACTIVELY PROMOTING A CHILDS
BEST INTERESTS AFTER PARENTAL SEPERATION.PARENTAL ALIENATION IS CHILD
ABUSE.LET OUR KIDS BE THE WINNERS AND NOT THE PRIZE
|
|
|
|
