Father barred from inheriting R716,000 estate after abandoning son for 29 years

Acting Judge Frank Snyckers found that the father’s complete and sustained abandonment of his son, from infancy until the son’s death at the age of 29, justified excluding him from the inheritance. The ruling means the father cannot benefit from the estate, even though he remains the deceased’s biological parent under the rules governing intestate succession.

A dispute over an estate left without a will

The legal challenge was brought by the deceased’s mother, who was the executrix of his estate. Her son died without leaving a will on July 7, 2021, after contracting Covid-19.

At the time of his death, the man had no spouse, life partner, children, siblings or dependants. In the ordinary course, his surviving parents would have inherited the estate in equal shares under the Intestate Succession Act.

That would have entitled each parent to approximately R358,000. The mother approached the court to prevent the father from receiving his share, arguing that he had played virtually no role in raising or supporting their son.

Her application initially sought an order declaring that the father was not a parent for the purposes of the Intestate Succession Act. The court did not grant that relief. Instead, it found that the father remained a parent in terms of the legislation but could still be declared unworthy to inherit because of his conduct.

Father’s involvement ended during his son’s infancy

The judgment described a brief relationship between the parents when the mother was 18, which resulted in the pregnancy. The father made a few payments before the pregnancy but showed little interest in the child and was not present at his birth.

The couple never lived together. During the first month after the child was born, the father provided some nappies, but he then largely disappeared from the mother and child’s lives.

When the boy was about a year old, the father visited him in hospital after the child had been injured. That visit was effectively the last meaningful involvement he had in his son’s life, the court heard.

The mother initially pursued maintenance through the Maintenance Court, but the payments were sporadic. After finding employment when her child was about a year old, she stopped pursuing maintenance and raised him herself with support from her mother, brothers and other relatives.

When the boy was about six, his mother’s life partner became a father figure to him. The court found there was no meaningful relationship between the deceased and his biological father throughout the rest of his life.

Other than a chance encounter at a function, where the two did not speak, there was no evidence of contact between them. The father also made no further contribution towards his son’s upkeep.

Biological parenthood did not settle the inheritance dispute

The father’s status as the deceased’s biological parent was central to the case. Under intestate succession, a person’s estate is distributed according to statutory rules when there is no valid will. Those rules identify relatives who may inherit, including surviving parents.

Judge Snyckers rejected the argument that the father should be treated as not being a parent because of his conduct. He said the Intestate Succession Act was intended to provide clear rules for identifying inheritance rights, rather than requiring courts to decide whether a biological relative deserved the legal status of parent.

The judge also found that the legislation recognises blood relationships when determining who may inherit. It does not state that a father who failed to acquire parental rights under the Children’s Act, or whose parental rights were terminated, automatically ceases to be a parent for inheritance purposes.

As a result, the court found that the father remained a parent under the Intestate Succession Act. That finding, however, did not give him an unconditional right to receive a share of the estate.

Common-law principle of unworthiness applied

The court relied on the common-law principle of unworthiness to inherit. The principle allows a person to be excluded from benefiting from an estate in circumstances where their conduct makes inheritance legally unacceptable.

In this case, the court concluded that the father’s conduct amounted to complete abandonment. His absence began essentially at the start of the deceased’s life and continued until his death.

Judge Snyckers cautioned that the ruling should not be understood to mean that every parent who has been absent, or who has failed in some aspect of parenting, will automatically be disqualified from inheriting.

The decision was limited to the facts before the court: a father who had effectively abandoned his child from infancy and had no meaningful relationship with him for the remainder of his life.

The judge said less extreme situations would need to be considered on their own facts. That could include cases involving parents who maintained some contact or involvement but fell short in other respects.

Father excluded from the estate

The court found that granting the alternative relief sought by the mother would not prejudice the father. The factual allegations and the reasons advanced for excluding him were essentially the same as those set out in the original application.

The father was ultimately declared unworthy to inherit from his late son’s estate. The mother’s application was dismissed in all other respects, and the costs of the proceedings were ordered to be paid from the deceased’s estate.

The ruling draws a distinction between being legally recognised as a parent and being permitted to benefit from an estate. Although the father retained his status as the deceased’s biological parent for intestate succession purposes, the court found that his long-term abandonment justified preventing him from receiving any inheritance.