A father’s renewed bid to share in the R15m left behind by his late son whom he had not seen since the child was six months old has been turned down by the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria), says a Pretoria News report.

The father, referred to as TM in the judgment by Judge Jody Kollapen, applied for leave to appeal against a ruling that only the child’s grandmother, who raised him, and the child’s mother would share the millions. The man maintained that as he was the biological father, he stood in line to inherit.

But Kollapen earlier found that a parent did not in the strict sense of the word need to be the blood and biological parent to inherit if the child died intestate. The boy died in 2018 at age five, a few days after the court terminated the parenthood of his father. This followed an application by his grandmother for both his parents to forfeit their parenthood responsibilities for the boy, who was born with cerebral palsy.

After the child died, the executor initially turned to court for guidance as to whom should inherit the R15m. The judge ruled that the grandmother and mother equally share in the inheritance.

The Pretoria News report says in his leave to appeal application, the father said the judge erred in finding that he never assumed any parental responsibilities and rights and did not contribute in any manner in raising the child. He argued that the court was also wrong in not holding that the word ‘parent’ in the Intestate Succession Act was a reference to blood relationships.

The judge said the man had made much of what he termed a factual dispute with regard to whether he assumed parental responsibilities in respect of the minor child. ‘Notwithstanding what he may say with regard to his alleged contribution, the reality of the matter and the legal position is far from being in dispute. The applicant did not acquire any parental rights in respect of the child in terms of the Children’s Act.’

The judge added that in any event, his rights were terminated in 2018. Regarding the father’s insistence that ‘parent’ must always mean biological parent in terms of the law, such an interpretation would be offensive to both the provisions of the Constitution and the Children’s Act. He concluded that it could not be said that there was a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different finding on this issue.

1 view0 comments