A GERMANY-based woman, Selina Sitole, who allegedly gave up custody of her daughter 14 years ago because she remarried, has appealed to the Supreme Court to regain custody of the child.
The child is grown now, she is 26 years old and the mother gave up custody to the father when she was 15 years old.
The first suspect named is Lloyd Muriva, the child’s biological father.
Sitole applied to the court to seek the appointment of a certain Pepukai Mabundu as curator (legal representative).
In her application, Sitole claimed that the child was mentally ill and could not administer justice on her own.
She claimed that she wanted to use her current stay in Germany to seek medical help for her daughter and therefore wanted her custody.
However, Muriva denied the request, arguing that the child was not mentally ill. The father added that the child graduated from college four years ago. Sitole was remarried in Denmark in August 2008.
Supreme Court Justice Justice Fatima Maxwell said in her assessment that the child was not a minor as she was now 26.
“It follows that the applicant (Sitole) had no jurisdiction to make that application on the basis that the child was a minor… I consider that the applicant should have given the reasons on which she believes the child is insane. It is undisputed that the complainant looked after the child until 2011,” the judgment said.
“The applicant should have made any observations that indicate mental instability during the time she had the child in her care. The fact that she did not feel the need to seek the help of a psychiatrist or neuropsychologist at the time is telling.”
Judge Maxwell questioned Sitole as to why she did not gather evidence of the child’s mental condition until the teenage years, when she had custody.
“Mr Tinarwo’s reply was that there are degrees of intellectual disability and that the child’s condition was not extreme when the applicant had custody. This condition was not extreme, suggesting that there were tell-tale signs, but the founding affidavit states none,” the ruling reads.
“I am not satisfied that a case has been brought for the appointment of a curator ad article. No facts have been presented which would enable the court to conclude that the child’s condition is such as to justify the appointment of a guardian. The application therefore fails.
“The first defendant demanded costs at the attorney and client level. His arguments are that he incurred unnecessary expenses. I agree.
“Although the applicant was challenged that the application was unfounded, he insisted. There is no reason why the First Defendant should deny the First Defendant the requested costs.”
Comments are closed.