A wealthy businessperson, previously the CEO of one of SA’s largest discount retail footwear and apparel companies, has been slapped with a hefty bill for the upkeep of his stepchildren after splitting up with their mother.
The Western Cape High Court has set a precedent, ruling that the man, who can’t be named for legal reasons, must continue providing for the three children, as he had done during the marriage to their mother.
The couple, who married in 2018 out of community of property with the inclusion of the accrual system, are now knee-deep in a divorce drama. The former CEO, who pocketed a R500m windfall from business deals, stopped providing financial support to his estranged wife and stepchildren.
He argued that he did not have a legal duty to maintain them, saying the children had a strong bond with their biological father, who was already contributing and in regular contact.
But judge Daniel Thulare did not buy the argument, slamming it as “shocking behaviour towards the children”.
“On the facts before me, the parties formed a new family. The children of the applicant were part of that family and lived at the parties’ common home in a golf estate, which was a spacious home with ... en suite bedrooms including separate training and playrooms with a barbecue room next to the swimming pool,” reads the judgment.
“The respondent provided financial support and presented to the children, the family, including the extended family members, and the world that he was responsible as a parent of the children.
“The children moved to private school and were spoilt with luxury, including expensive birthday and Christmas gifts. The respondent paid for the children’s medical aid.
“It [financial support] cannot be left to the feelings of the stepparent at the end of the relationship where impulse often trumps reason. It is a consequence of their conscious decision as regards the child who is not their biological child at the solemnisation of and/or during the marriage. Marriage must give insight when love is blind.”
The judge ordered the man to pay his wife R40,000 monthly and to keep her and her children as dependants on his comprehensive medical aid scheme and to pay the premiums. Thulare also ordered the man to pay the wife’s monthly rental, capped at R35,000, and water and electricity for the rental property, Wi-Fi, security, domestic worker’s and gardener’s salaries, and vehicle instalments.
A WhatsApp message to his colleagues in December in which he announced he was planning to separate from his wife came back to bite him. In it, he said he would continue to provide for the children’s education and other things they were accustomed to.
“Abrupt change happened in that he stopped giving the children love, time, experience and education. He stopped his support for the applicant. The respondent said one thing in public and did the exact opposite in private,” reads the judgment.
“His denial of [the] applicant’s access to household appliances and necessary furniture is a demonstration of how low the respondent could stoop to hurt another and deny them a sustainable livelihood.
“It is impossible to rely on his words. If the mediation did not expect him to disclose, the applicant would not have known about the financial structure and web of trusts and companies he built to manage his assets and estate. His reliance on the applicant being a trustee and capital and income beneficiary in the trusts is not helpful if the applicant did not even know that there were trusts [in which] she was a trustee.”
The SA Law Reform Commission has proposed an overhaul of the child maintenance regime that, if approved, would cause authorities to pursue trusts and living annuities of defaulters. The commission said many defendants tried to avoid payment of maintenance by establishing trusts.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.