A father who is allegedly being investigated for sexually molesting his twin girls has been denied their custody
Image: Pexels
A father accused of sexually molesting his three-year-old twin daughters lost an urgent court bid to regain custody, interdict his arrest and stop the mother from opening further criminal cases against him.
The Pretoria High Court ruled that the children's best interests must be protected while investigations proceeded.
The father approached the High Court with the intention to restore his primary custody of his twin daughters, interdict his arrest and bar the mother from laying further criminal charges against him
Acting Judge M Haskins refused to interfere with the criminal investigation, and ruled that courts cannot instruct police on whether to arrest or summon a suspect, and that halting criminal proceedings would let suspects control the justice system.
“Any suspect would merely have to set out in a founding affidavit that the arrest in future will be unlawful. The whole criminal justice system will fail and will be controlled by suspects,” the Judge said.
The court ordered the Family Advocate to urgently investigate the children’s best interests but made no finding on the truth of the allegations, saying the father’s presumption of innocence remained intact while his parental rights were curtailed to protect the children.
The father of the girls approached the Pretoria High Court recently on an urgent basis after the children’s mother reported to police that both girls had disclosed inappropriate sexual behaviour by him.
According to court papers, the parents were in a relationship from April 2020 to February 2025 and had shared primary residence of the children, as ordered by a Children’s Court in March 2026.
At the end of May, the mother reported that both children had made disclosures of inappropriate sexual conduct by the father. She recorded conversations with the children, sought assistance from a social worker and opened a criminal complaint with the South African Police Service (SAPS).
A J88 medical examination form, used to document injuries in assault cases, was completed in early July 2026.
The father, who appeared in person, sought an order restoring primary residence of the children to him, suspending the mother's residence, interdicting the mother from laying further criminal complaints without the court's permission, and interdicting the police from arresting him except by way of a summons. He also asked the court to compel the police to investigate alternative suspects.
The mother, represented by Adv. S. van Dyk, opposed the application. The Minister of Police, the second respondent, filed a notice to abide by the court’s decision.
Acting Judge Haskins found that while the matter was partly urgent, the father had failed to show urgency for most of the relief sought. The judge noted that the father had brought the application on an extremely urgent basis, giving the mother only two days to respond.
On the custody issue, the judge held that it would be premature and contrary to the children’s best interests to restore unsupervised primary care to the father while the investigation and assessment were still pending. The court made no finding on the truth of the allegations.
“This court makes no finding, directly or indirectly, of the veracity of the complaints against the applicant and is not finding that any inappropriate behaviour of the applicant or molestation of the children did in fact occur,” Judge Haskins ruled.
The judge emphasised the tension between the father’s rights and the children’s protection: “The applicant is entitled to the presumption of innocence and yet his rights in respect of his children are curtailed to protect them.”
On the relief sought against the police, Haskins was firm that the courts cannot direct the police or prosecuting authority on how to exercise their discretion. Relying on Section 179(2) of the Constitution, which vests the power to institute criminal proceedings in the prosecuting authority, the judge said such power was integral to the executive function and protected by prosecutorial independence.
The court refused the father’s prayers to interdict his arrest, compel police to use a summons instead, and direct police to investigate alternative suspects. The judge also refused to interdict the mother from laying further criminal complaints, finding that the father had not established the requirements for a final interdict.
The court ordered the Family Advocate's Office in Pretoria to urgently investigate and report on the children's best interests, including contact, care and permanent residence. Costs were reserved for determination in Part B of the proceedings.
Related Topics:
Follow the story
