When a Child Refuses Contact: The Child’s Voice in South African Care and Contact Disputes

Speak to us now

Strategic advice on your matter.

Few sentences land harder in a co-parenting arrangement than “the child does not want to go.” One parent hears it as rejection. The other is caught between an order of court and a child who is crying at the door. Both then ask the same question, usually in the same words: at what age can a child decide?

The answer is not the one most people expect. South African law fixes no age at which a child may decide whether to live with or have contact with a parent. When a child refuses contact, the child’s view is legally relevant, sometimes considerably so, but it does not settle the matter. What follows explains what the law requires where a child refuses contact, how the child’s views are lawfully placed before a court, how a court tests whether those views are the child’s own, and what each parent should and should not do. It is written for both sides of the dispute, because care and contact disputes of this kind are rarely as one-sided as the affidavits suggest.

When a Child Refuses Contact, the Law Does Not Fix an Age

There is no age of 12. There is no age of 16. Neither proposition is a correct statement of South African law. Both are repeated often enough, whenever a child refuses contact, that they have taken on the appearance of a rule.

Where a child refuses contact, that refusal is legally relevant, but it is not automatically determinative. A child has a right to be heard. That is not the same as a right to decide, and where a child refuses contact that distinction is decisive. Where a child refuses contact, the decision remains one for the court, or for the parties exercising their parental responsibilities and rights, applying the standard of the child’s best interests.

The practical consequence matters. Neither parent should tell a child that the child is responsible for deciding whether contact takes place. That places an inappropriate burden on a child and can create or reinforce a loyalty conflict. When a child refuses contact and says “I do not want to go”, the proper legal question is not “can we stop contact?” It is why the child does not want to go, how independently that view is held, and what arrangement serves the child’s best interests.

What Section 10 of the Children’s Act Requires When a Child Refuses Contact

The participation right sits in section 10 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which provides that every child who is of such an age, maturity and stage of development as to be able to participate in any matter concerning that child has the right to participate in an appropriate way, and that views expressed by the child must be given due consideration.

Read the wording closely. It confers a right to participate and requires due consideration. It does not confer decision-making authority, and it does not attach to a birthday. Section 10 is the provision a court applies whenever a child refuses contact and the reasons for the refusal are in dispute, and it operates according to the individual child’s ability to participate rather than by an age threshold.

That cuts in both directions. Where a 15-year-old child refuses contact and holds that view independently, it will ordinarily carry considerably more weight than the view of a much younger child. Equally, the fact that a child is young does not mean the child’s views can simply be ignored. Where a child refuses contact, a court considers the child’s age, emotional and intellectual development, ability to understand the consequences of the position expressed, and the circumstances in which the view was formed.

It also considers the reason for the preference. There is an obvious difference between a child who says “I do not want to go because Dad will not let me play PlayStation”, a child who says “I am tired of moving between two houses”, and a child who says “I am frightened of what happens when I am there.” A child refuses contact for very different reasons in each of those examples, and each requires a different response.

The older and more mature the child, the more difficult it may practically become for a court to make an order that completely disregards a firmly held and rationally explained view. Weight, however, is not a veto. Where a mature child refuses contact, the same best-interests enquiry applies as for any other child.

The Best Interests Standard Still Decides the Outcome

Section 9 of the Children’s Act provides that in all matters concerning the care, protection and well-being of a child, the standard that the child’s best interest is of paramount importance must be applied. https://www.justice.gov.za/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf puts it in the same terms, providing that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.

Where a child refuses contact, the child’s stated view is one factor inside the best interests of the child enquiry, not a substitute for it. Section 7 lists the factors that must be taken into account where relevant. Several of them apply directly where a child refuses contact, including the nature of the personal relationship between the child and each parent, the attitude of each parent towards the exercise of parental responsibilities and rights, the likely effect on the child of any change in circumstances, the child’s age, maturity and stage of development, and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm.

Note the second of those. The best interests of the child enquiry expressly takes account of how each parent has behaved towards the exercise of parental responsibilities and rights. A parent who quietly permits a refusal is not standing outside the enquiry. Where a child refuses contact, that parent’s own conduct forms part of it.

Contact itself is defined in the Act as maintaining a personal relationship with the child and, where the child lives with someone else, communicating with the child on a regular basis in person or by post, telephone or other electronic communication. Section 18(2)(b) records the responsibility and the right to maintain contact with a child. Contact is therefore a responsibility owed to the child, not merely an entitlement held by an adult. That distinction matters the moment a child refuses contact, because the obligation runs to the child rather than between the adults.

Section 28 of the Constitution puts it in the same terms, providing that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. The Constitutional Court of South Africa is the highest court on the interpretation of that provision.

The First Fortnight: What to Do Immediately When a Child Refuses Contact

Most of the damage in these matters is done in the first two or three weeks, before anyone has taken legal advice. The following sequence is the one we would ordinarily suggest when a child refuses contact for the first time.

Comply with the order on its terms. Present the child at the agreed time and place, even where a child refuses contact, because a single missed handover becomes a pattern very quickly.
Record the event objectively and on the day. Note the date and the time, what was said when a child refuses contact at the door, and what steps were taken to prepare the child.
Tell the other parent in writing, calmly and without accusation. Section 6(4)(a) of the Children’s Act requires a conciliatory, problem-solving approach and requires that a confrontational approach be avoided.
Offer a substitute arrangement. Where a child refuses contact, a shorter visit, a public place or a telephone call preserves the relationship while the reason is investigated.
Ask the question once, gently, and then stop. Repeated questioning contaminates the very evidence a court will later need.
Take advice before the third missed handover. Once a child refuses contact three times, the pattern is established and the position is materially harder to correct.

Where a child refuses contact and a safety allegation is raised, this sequence does not apply. Obtain urgent legal advice instead of proceeding with the handover, and report the concern to the appropriate professional.

How a Child’s Views Properly Reach a Court

This is the part most competitor content skips. When a child refuses contact, the child’s view carries no weight in litigation merely because a parent asserts it from the bar. It carries weight because it has been obtained independently, by someone qualified to obtain it, in a way a court can test. There are several routes and none is appropriate in every matter.

A Family Advocate enquiry

A Family Advocate enquiry is often the first practical avenue where a child refuses contact and the dispute is a broad parenting dispute rather than a narrow evidential issue. The Family Advocate, an office of the https://www.justice.gov.za, can investigate the circumstances and make recommendations concerning the child’s best interests. Section 29(5)(a) of the Children’s Act allows a court hearing an application about parental responsibilities and rights to order that a report and recommendations of a family advocate, a social worker or another suitably qualified person be submitted to it, and section 29(5)(b) allows the court to order that a specified matter be investigated by a person the court designates. Our article on https://vermeulenlaw.co.za/the-role-functions-and-benefits-of-the-family-advocate/ sets out how that office works.

One caution, because it is frequently misunderstood. A recommendation is a recommendation. The report informs the court. It does not bind the court, and where a child refuses contact the court remains obliged to apply the best interests standard itself.

A voice of the child report

Where the dispute requires a detailed assessment of the child’s emotional functioning, the relationship with each parent, or the reasons why a child refuses contact, a social worker or psychologist may prepare a report. This is the route usually described as the voice of the child report. It conveys the child’s perspective, and the professional’s assessment of it, in a form the court can weigh. A private professional may act more quickly than a state office, at a cost, and must still be appropriately qualified and independent.

A curator ad litem

Where a child refuses contact and the child’s interests require independent representation that cannot be achieved through the parents’ evidence, the High Court, in its capacity as upper guardian of all minor children, may appoint a curator ad litem. This suits entrenched disputes in which both accounts of why the child refuses contact have become unreliable.

A legal representative for the child

A child may also be separately legally represented. Section 28(1)(h) of the Constitution provides that a child has the right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the child by the state, and at state expense, in civil proceedings affecting the child, if substantial injustice would otherwise result. Section 29(6) of the Children’s Act gives effect to this in care and contact proceedings. It permits the court to appoint a legal practitioner for the child, and to order the parties, or any one of them, or the state where substantial injustice would otherwise result, to pay the costs. Section 14 of the Act separately confirms that every child has the right to bring, and to be assisted in bringing, a matter to a court.

A judicial interview

A judge may in a particular case speak to a child. It should not be regarded as an informal opportunity for a child to tell the judge which parent they choose, and it is not available simply because a parent asks for it. A judicial interview is exceptional and discretionary, and it is not the ordinary route by which the court learns why a child refuses contact.

Choosing between these routes is a legal decision. A routine disagreement may justify a Family Advocate process, serious harm allegations may require an expert assessment, and a genuine safety issue may require an immediate court application. The one route that is never appropriate, where a child refuses contact, is the parent conducting their own investigation of the child.

If you are unsure which of these routes fits your matter, that is precisely the question to bring to a consultation. https://www.vermeulenlaw.co.za/contact-us/ before the position hardens.

Which Court Hears the Matter

Section 29(1) of the Children’s Act provides that an application concerning the assignment, suspension, termination, extension or circumscription of parental responsibilities and rights may be brought before the High Court, a divorce court in a divorce matter, or a children’s court, within whose area of jurisdiction the child is ordinarily resident. Section 29(4) requires that court to be guided by the general principles in Chapter 2 of the Act, which include section 9 and section 10.

Where the contact order forms part of a divorce order, the matter ordinarily returns to the court that granted it.

Which forum is appropriate when a child refuses contact depends on the existing order, the relief sought and the urgency. Where the contact order forms part of a divorce order, the matter ordinarily returns to the court that granted it. Where the relief is urgent or requires the court’s powers as upper guardian, the High Court is generally the correct forum. Where a child refuses contact, this is a decision to take on advice, because approaching the wrong forum wastes both time and costs.

Timeframes, Delay and What Applies in the Meantime

A Family Advocate enquiry is not necessarily an immediate process. Delays arise depending on the office, workload, the complexity of the dispute and the availability of the parties. Proceedings brought because a child refuses contact also take time where there are affidavits, reports, expert evidence and competing allegations. Section 6(4)(b) of the Children’s Act requires that delay be avoided as far as possible, but that provision does not compress a genuine investigation into a fortnight.

The critical point for the interim is this. Where a child refuses contact and an investigation is pending, the pending investigation does not suspend the existing contact order. Unless the order is varied, suspended or replaced by another order, the parties remain bound by it. A parenting plan that was made an order of court may be amended or terminated only by an order of court, under section 34(5). If an arrangement has become genuinely unsuitable or unsafe, the correct course is to seek appropriate relief, not to allow the order to lapse informally.

How a Court Tests Whether the View Is the Child’s Own

No checklist allows an attorney or a court to determine authenticity from a child’s words alone. An authentic view is often marked by age-appropriate language, consistency over time, and reasons that fit the child’s actual experience. Consistency alone does not prove authenticity, and a child who changes their explanation is not necessarily being coached. Where a child refuses contact, a court considers the totality of the evidence.

Indicators that ordinarily prompt further investigation where a child refuses contact include:

language that appears unusually adult or legalistic for the child’s age;
absolute rejection without the child being able to explain any specific experience;
an unexplained deterioration in the relationship following a significant dispute between the parents;
evidence that one parent repeatedly questions the child about the other parent;
the child appearing fearful of displeasing one parent;
allegations that change materially depending on who is present; and
a parent making the child responsible for the decision whether contact occurs.

These are indicators requiring investigation where a child refuses contact. They are not proof of coaching, and they are not proof of alienation. Where inappropriate influence is genuinely in issue, our separate article deals with https://vermeulenlaw.co.za/parental-alienation-legal-remedies/. It is worth saying plainly that not every refusal is alienation. When a child refuses contact, the cause may be genuine fear, developmental change, conflict, exhaustion, ordinary teenage preference, a loyalty conflict, relationship difficulties, or inappropriate influence. The cause has to be investigated rather than assumed.

The Versions of This Dispute That Come Through the Door

In practice these matters present in recognisable forms, and the correct legal response differs in each.

The teenager with a full social life. A teenager may genuinely prefer friends, sport or a settled routine over weekends at the other parent’s home. Where a child refuses contact for this reason, it does not necessarily indicate a breakdown in the parent-child relationship. The answer may be to reconsider the practical shape of the arrangement rather than abandon contact.

The younger child repeating an adult narrative. A child may use language or make allegations that appear inconsistent with the child’s age or ordinary experience. That does not mean the child is lying. It means the circumstances in which a child refuses contact need proper investigation.

The child with a genuine safety concern. This must be treated entirely differently. Allegations of abuse, violence, substance abuse or neglect should not be dismissed as a case in which a child refuses contact for ordinary reasons. They require proper investigation and, where appropriate, urgent intervention.

The child fatigued by the arrangement. Sometimes the issue is not the parent at all. Sometimes a child refuses contact because the child is exhausted by travelling, changing homes every few days, carrying belongings between houses, or following a schedule that no longer fits the child’s age and activities.

The child caught in the middle. A child who loves both parents may feel that choosing one betrays the other. Sometimes a child refuses contact simply to relieve that pressure.

This is why the enquiry is never simply which parent the child wants. Our article on https://vermeulenlaw.co.za/navigating-the-complex-terrain-of-child-custody/ sets the wider framework in which these questions sit.

What to Preserve, and What Never to Do

A parent should preserve objective evidence rather than attempt to manufacture evidence from the child. Where a child refuses contact, useful records include:

dates and times of scheduled contact, and whether the child attended;
communications between the parents about contact;
reasons given for cancellations;
school or extracurricular commitments affecting contact;
relevant medical or therapeutic information;
communications from schools or professionals where appropriate; and
evidence of repeated attempts to facilitate contact.

What follows is the part that most often damages a parent’s own case. Do not interrogate the child. Repeatedly asking “why do you not want to go to Dad?”, or “what did Dad say to you?”, or “tell the judge you do not want to go” is corrosive for the child and frequently held against the parent who does it.

Be extremely cautious about asking a child to write a statement or letter for court, secretly recording conversations with the child for the purpose of litigation, or coaching the child on what to say to the Family Advocate, a psychologist or the court. Where a child refuses contact, the child should not become the parent’s witness. Where a child refuses contact and there is a genuine concern, the parent should record the concern themselves and place it before the appropriate professional or court.

The Residential Parent’s Own Obligation

Where a child has a relationship with the other parent and contact has been agreed or ordered, the parent with whom the child resides should generally take reasonable steps to facilitate and encourage that relationship. When a child refuses contact, it is not sufficient to say “I told the child they had to go.” A parent cannot necessarily discharge a responsibility by placing the decision entirely on the child.

That means encouraging the child, preparing the child for the transition, ensuring the child is ready at the agreed time, and avoiding conduct that undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent. It does not mean that a parent must force a child into a situation where there is a genuine and credible safety concern. The distinction, when a child refuses contact, is between facilitating contact and ignoring a legitimate child-protection concern, and a court will examine it closely.

The stakes are not only civil. Section 35(1) of the Children’s Act creates a criminal offence where a person having care or custody of a child, contrary to a court order or a parental responsibilities and rights agreement that has taken effect, refuses or prevents another person from exercising the contact or the responsibilities and rights conferred by that order or agreement. On conviction the penalty is a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year. Prosecution is not the ordinary route in a family dispute and should not be deployed as a threat, but the provision indicates how seriously the legislature treats obstruction of court-ordered contact. Our article on https://vermeulenlaw.co.za/the-impact-of-ignoring-court-orders-in-childrens-matters/ deals with the civil consequences.

Therapeutic Support and Rebuilding the Relationship

Litigation is not always the first instrument to reach for. Where a child refuses contact and the relationship has deteriorated rather than broken, a referral to an appropriately qualified therapist, working with the child and with each parent, is frequently more useful than an enforcement application. Where a child refuses contact after a long absence, reintroduction is often staged, beginning with short and low-pressure contact.

Two cautions apply. A therapeutic referral does not vary the existing order, and the order continues to bind both parents while the therapy runs. A therapist engaged to treat a child is also not an independent assessor appointed to give evidence about which parent the child prefers, and treating a treating therapist as an expert witness tends to compromise both roles.

Enforce, Vary, or Approach the Court Urgently

Which application is appropriate depends largely on why a child refuses contact.

Enforcement may be appropriate where a child refuses contact, the existing arrangement remains suitable on the evidence, and the residential parent is simply not facilitating it.

Variation may be more appropriate where circumstances have materially changed and the arrangement no longer works for the child. Reconsideration may be justified where the child’s developmental needs have changed, the child has significant extracurricular commitments, a parent has relocated, the schedule is causing real distress, or new information has emerged about the child’s safety. Section 28 of the Children’s Act separately allows a court to suspend, terminate, extend or circumscribe the exercise of parental responsibilities and rights, and requires the court to consider the child’s best interests, the relationship between the child and the person concerned, and the degree of commitment that person has shown.

An urgent application is justified where waiting for the ordinary litigation process may expose the child to significant harm. Urgency is not established merely because a child refuses contact on one weekend and a parent is unhappy that it did not occur.

There is a step before all three. Section 33(2) of the Children’s Act provides that where co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights are experiencing difficulties in exercising them, they must first seek to agree a parenting plan before seeking the intervention of a court, and section 33(5)(a) requires them to seek the assistance of a family advocate, a social worker or a psychologist in preparing it. https://www.vermeulenlaw.co.za/family-law/parenting-plans/ and https://adrlaw.co.za resolve a substantial proportion of these disputes without litigation. Where a child refuses contact because the schedule no longer fits their age and commitments, a redrafted plan often removes the friction that produced the refusal.

“The Child Refused, Not I”: How That Defence Is Tested

This is among the most common answers filed in a contact enforcement application. Saying that a child refuses contact is neither an automatic defence nor automatic proof of obstruction. The court has to determine what actually happened and whether the parent complied with the obligations imposed by the order.

A court examining that defence will typically want to know:

What did the parent do to encourage contact?
Was the child prepared and available at the agreed time?
Did the parent communicate appropriately with the other parent?
Did the parent seek assistance when the problem first arose?
Was there a genuine safety concern, and was it reported to the appropriate professional?
Was there an application to vary the order?
How long has the refusal been occurring?
What evidence exists independently of the residential parent’s account?

Where a parent has done everything reasonably expected of them and a child refuses contact regardless, the matter becomes considerably more nuanced, and outcomes depend heavily on the evidence placed before the court. What a parent cannot do is avoid an existing order by reporting that a child refuses contact.

A Note on the Recent Legislative Changes

New Children’s Court Rules were published on 27 February 2026 in Government Gazette 54219, GoN 7179, replacing the version published shortly beforehand. Sections 4, 5, 8(e), 11 and 12 of the Children’s Amendment Act 17 of 2022 commenced on 28 May 2025 under Proclamation 263.

These developments are worth knowing about. They did not create a new rule permitting a child to decide the question, and they did not alter the position where a child refuses contact. Section 10, the best interests standard and the mechanisms by which a child’s views are obtained remain the framework that applies when a child refuses contact.

When to Get Attorneys Involved

Contact refusal is one of the few areas of family law where self-help reliably makes the position worse. A parent who suspends contact unilaterally because a child refuses contact exposes themselves to enforcement. A parent who questions, records or coaches the child damages the very evidence they are trying to build. A parent who waits while a child refuses contact creates a period of no contact that becomes a fact the court must work around.

Attorney involvement is appropriate as soon as a pattern emerges rather than once it has hardened. Care and contact disputes of this kind turn on the quality of the independent evidence about the child, and that evidence takes time to obtain. Where a child refuses contact and safety allegations are raised, obtain urgent legal advice rather than acting unilaterally.

Our https://www.vermeulenlaw.co.za/family-law/childrens-matters/ advises parents on both sides of a contact refusal, including whether a Family Advocate referral, a voice of the child report, a curator ad litem, a variation application or an urgent approach is the right route in your circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

At what age can my child decide not to visit their other parent?

There is no such age in South African law. Section 10 of the Children’s Act turns on the child’s age, maturity and stage of development, and requires that a child’s views be given due consideration. Where an older child refuses contact and holds that view independently, it will ordinarily carry considerably more weight than a young child’s, but even an older teenager’s wishes are not automatically determinative. The decision remains a best-interests decision.

Can I be held in contempt of court when a child refuses contact?

It is possible, and it depends on the facts and the evidence. A court will look at whether you genuinely attempted to comply with the order and facilitate contact, or whether the refusal was permitted, encouraged or manufactured. Saying that a child refuses contact does not by itself answer the application. Section 35(1) of the Children’s Act also creates a separate criminal offence for refusing or preventing court-ordered contact, carrying a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year on conviction.

Will the judge speak to my child directly?

Sometimes, but not on request. A judicial interview is exceptional and discretionary, and it is not an opportunity for a child to tell the judge which parent they choose. In most matters where a child refuses contact, the views of the child reach the court through a Family Advocate, the voice of the child report, a curator ad litem or a legal representative appointed for the child.

What is a voice of the child report and who prepares it?

A voice of the child report is prepared by a suitably qualified social worker or psychologist and conveys the child’s perspective, together with the professional’s assessment of the child’s emotional functioning, the relationship with each parent and the reasons why a child refuses contact. Section 29(5)(a) of the Children’s Act allows a court to order that such a report be submitted to it.

Can I stop contact while a Family Advocate investigation is running?

No. Where a child refuses contact and an investigation is pending, the investigation does not suspend the existing order. Unless the order is varied, suspended or replaced, the parties remain bound by it. A parenting plan made an order of court may be amended or terminated only by an order of court. If the arrangement has become genuinely unsuitable or unsafe, apply for appropriate relief rather than allowing the order to lapse informally.

My child wrote a letter saying they do not want to go. Can I use it in court?

Be very careful. Asking a child to write a statement or letter for litigation is one of the practices most likely to be held against the parent who arranged it, because it invites the inference that the child was drawn into the dispute. Where a child refuses contact, the concern is better recorded by the parent and placed before the appropriate professional, so that the child’s view can be obtained independently and given proper weight.

Does a refusal mean the other parent is alienating my child?

Not necessarily. When a child refuses contact, the reason may be genuine fear, developmental change, exhaustion, conflict, ordinary teenage preference, a loyalty conflict, relationship difficulties, or inappropriate influence. Certain indicators justify investigation where a child refuses contact, but they are not proof. Treating every refusal as alienation tends to narrow the enquiry at exactly the point where it needs to widen.

What if only one of my children refuses to go?

This happens often and it is informative. Where one sibling maintains a relationship and another child refuses contact, that difference tends to point towards something specific to the individual child, such as age, temperament, a particular incident or a developmental stage, rather than towards a general problem with the other parent. It is a difference an independent assessor will want to examine before anyone draws conclusions.

Does the refusal affect child maintenance?

No. Contact and maintenance are separate obligations under the Children’s Act and are not conditional on one another. A parent may not withhold maintenance because a child refuses contact, and a parent may not withhold contact because maintenance is in arrears. Where a child refuses contact, each obligation is still enforced on its own terms and through its own process.

Speak to Our Family Law Team

When a child refuses contact, or you are being told that the child refuses, the question worth answering early is which route will properly place the child’s views before a court and how long that route will take. Where a child refuses contact, both sides are usually better served by independent evidence than by another exchange of affidavits.

https://www.vermeulenlaw.co.za/contact-us/ with Vermeulen Attorneys to assess whether a Family Advocate referral, a voice of the child report, a curator ad litem, a variation application or an urgent approach fits your circumstances. Where safety allegations are involved, please indicate this when you make contact so the matter can be treated with the urgency it requires.

This article provides general information on South African law and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes in care and contact matters depend on the specific facts, the available evidence and the discretion of the court. Please obtain advice on your own circumstances.

t-us/”>Book a consultation with Vermeulen Attorneys to assess whether a Family Advocate referral, a voice of the child report, a curator ad litem, a variation application or an urgent approach fits your circumstances. Where safety allegations are involved, please indicate this when you make contact so the matter can be treated with the urgency it requires.