Family: Maintenance for child doesn't end at 18 – ruling

A parent’s obligation to financially maintain their children does not stop once the child turns 18 but continues until the child is no longer financially dependent on the parent, the court remarked after a father claimed he no longer needed to pay maintenance towards his now over 18-year-old child. The Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) sentenced the father to a potential 60 days imprisonment for failing to adhere to an earlier court order, which required him to pay maintenance to both his wife and son during ongoing divorce proceedings. The court had previously ordered the man to make certain payments in the interim, pending the final divorce settlement. The father has been in arrears for two years, claiming that he had paid R144 000 to his wife in 2022, which he said was sufficient and that he owed nothing more. However, notes a Pretoria News report, his downfall was a letter he sent to his wife’s attorneys, in which he acknowledged being in arrears and claimed he had fallen on hard times. The wife then sought a court order holding her husband in contempt, requesting that he be committed to prison and fined. According to the previous order, he was meant to pay the wife R10 500 a month in maintenance and R4 000 towards his son. The wife stated that he is R115 500 in arrears for her maintenance, R44 000 for the child's maintenance, R27 280 in respect of arrears in school fees, and R11 000 in respect of the child’s medical needs. Although the wife’s lawyers noted that the child no longer attends school, as he is now 20, they argued that the father remains liable for historically unpaid school fees.

The admission to his wife’s lawyers that he had been in arrears with maintenance was found to be a clear admission of contempt, notes the Pretoria News. ‘The respondent’s further defence that the minor child has since become a major and is self-sustained has no merit and is rejected by this court. It is a trite legal principle that a minor child is entitled to be maintained until he or she is self-sufficient,’ the court stated. Furthermore, the court found that sending the man to direct imprisonment at this stage would be pointless, as he needed to work in order to fulfil his financial obligations. However, the man was given until the end of January next year to pay his arrears; otherwise, he would face two months in jail.