Court rejects woman's plea for child maintenance allowance increase
A 32-year-old Chedu Uyapo from Moshupa was issued a stern warning and advised to grant permission to Shatani Nthobatsang, the father of her son, visitation rights.
The case was presided over by Principal Magistrate Reuben Sebetlela of the Kanye Magistrate Court. Uyapo brought her ex-boyfriend Nthobatsang (37) to court, pleading for an increase in the monthly child maintenance allowance from P500 to P1000, citing the high cost of living.
Principal Magistrate Sebetlela asked Uyapo how she intended to spend the P1000 she was demanding. She explained that the current P500 monthly child maintenance was insufficient, as she is unemployed and pays expenses such as P400 for taxi fare for their 11 year-old child, P300 for groceries, P200 for stationery, and she also wants to reserve P300 for Mopako and P200 for toiletries.
She explained that her son attends school from 6:30 am to 4:30 pm and needs to eat during the day, which is why she is requesting the increase in maintenance allowance. When asked by the Magistrate how much she spends on her son monthly, Uyapo informed the Magistrate that she spends P2000 on the child each month. The Magistrate advised her that toiletries should not be included in the maintenance allowance, as the child also bathes when visiting the father. The Magistrate then asked the mother if she would be able to provide toiletries for the child during those visits.
Given the chance to speak before the court, Nthobatsang, who works as a prison officer at Moshupa prison, stated that he recently obtained a restraining order against the mother of his child because she harasses him and denies him visitation rights to the child. He informed the court that he has never defaulted on the child maintenance allowance he pays every month and mentioned that Uyapo often contacts him whenever she is in financial
difficulty, even outside of the regular monthly payments. "Ha a chona o ta ko go nna," stated Nthobatsang.
He lamented that Uyapo often tells him she does not want the child to visit him because she is concerned about the child being exposed to Nthobatsang's multiple partners. He revealed to the court that despite living in the same village, he hardly ever gets to see the child, whom he has even included in his medical aid coverage.
In response, Sebetlela withdrew the case and issued a stern warning to the mother, stating that the father had the right to see the child whenever he desired. Sebetlela also cautioned that Nthobatsang, as the father, had the right to seek a partner to marry, and it would be beneficial for the child to establish a close relationship with that woman as soon as possible. "If she refuses with the child, come to court, I will grant child access, you also have to look for a partner to marry, the sooner she gets close to the child, the better," stated Sebetlela.
The case was withdrawn. Nthobatsang was accompanied by a female, who Uyapo later claimed was his girlfriend. When speaking to The Midweek Sun, Uyapo explained that the reason she took him to court is that raising an 11-year-old child was expensive. She mentioned that her child often wants clothing labels such as Polo and Nike, which she is unable to afford with the maintenance allowance. Uyapo emphasised that the allowance does not adequately support her son's living expenses, especially since she is unemployed.