The Legal Profession’s Complicity in the Weaponisation of Family Law
In the fraught and emotionally charged arena of family law, one might reasonably expect legal professionals—who are bound by both the Constitution and the Legal Practice Act—to act as stewards of fairness, efficiency, and above all, the best interests of children. Sadly, the reality in South Africa could not be further from this expectation.
Across the country, in matters involving parental care, contact, and guardianship, lawyers have become the primary architects of sustained conflict. Far from resolving disputes, many family law attorneys act as commercial opportunists—actively prolonging litigation, inciting hostility, and driving both parties into an endless and toxic cycle of lawfare. They do so not through legal merit or measured negotiation, but by engaging in a pattern of correspondence that is inflammatory, deceptive, and entirely unaccountable.
Fathers 4 Justice aims to dismantle the facade of “professional conduct” behind which these lawyers operate and to expose the systemic abuse inflicted on parents—and by extension, their children—through malicious legal manipulation.
Endless Letters, Endless Conflict: How Lawyers Manufacture Hostility
One of the most common and insidious tactics employed by family lawyers is the generation of endless, inflammatory correspondence. These letters, typically issued under the header of “urgent legal instruction”, are rarely more than aggressive declarations of one parent’s will—disguised as binding legal directives.
They are written not to resolve, but to inflame. Not to clarify, but to confuse. They always include baseless demands, condescending language, and a plethora of false allegations and overused yet never complied with references to the “best interests of the child”, while simultaneously trampling on the very rights those children are entitled to under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
Let us be clear: unless these lawyers are issuing communications on the back of a duly issued court order, their letters carry ZERO legal authority whatsoever. And yet, they are ALWAYS written in such a way as to deliberately mislead the recipient—usually the father—into believing that non-compliance WILL amount to criminal or contemptuous conduct. This is both unethical and, arguably, and deliberately unconstitutional.
Deliberate Escalation for Profit: Lawyers as Architects of Lawfare
The adversarial conduct of family lawyers in the main reveals a truth the public must confront: these legal professionals have ZERO interest in resolving family disputes swiftly or amicably. Despite their professional obligations under the Legal Practice Act and the Legal Practice Council’s Code of Conduct, they consistently operate in direct contravention of those standards. They thrive not on resolution, but on prolongation.
Every letter written, every hour billed, every procedural delay introduced—these are not accidents of the system; they are the SYSTEM. The longer the matter drags on, the greater the financial benefit for the attorneys involved. This is not legal representation; it is financial exploitation by a cartel of professionals hiding behind the cloak of legal respectability.
By exploiting the deeply emotional nature of family breakdowns, these practitioners ALWAYS escalate conflict rather than manage and de-escalate it. They reject mediation out of hand not even advising their clients of the alternative, dismiss non-litigious proposals, and even dissuade clients from amicable settlement—all under the guise of “protecting their client’s interests and NEVER protecting the child’s best interest” while knowing full well that it is their own billable hours that are the ONLY THING being protected.
Illegally Framing Letters as Court Orders
Perhaps the most outrageous and insidious behaviour is when a lawyer drafts a letter that gives the false impression of a judicial edict. These letters commonly include statements such as, “You must comply with the following,” or “Our client has instructed that contact may only occur under these terms,” often listing location, supervision conditions, and other restrictions—without a shred of court authority.
This conduct is an affront to the rule of law and violates Section 34 of the Constitution, which guarantees all South Africans the right to have legal matters adjudicated in a fair and public hearing before an impartial court—not arbitrated via private correspondence between legal practitioners.
Moreover, such conduct directly undermines Section 28(2) of the Constitution, which mandates that the best interests of the child shall be of paramount importance. When lawyers enflame conflict, manipulate perceptions, and obstruct parental relationships based on unsubstantiated allegations or personal animus, they are not only acting unprofessionally—they are abusing children in the service of legal theatre.
Neither Side’s Lawyers Act in Good Faith
It is critical to acknowledge that in the vast majority of these cases, both parents’ legal representatives are complicit. Even when one parent desires a peaceful resolution, their lawyer often works to sabotage that aim by directly and deliberately colluding with the other attorney. Lawyers on both sides fuel the fire—each escalating the matter in tandem, never pursuing mediation with urgency, if at all, never calling for de-escalation. There is no incentive to end the conflict because doing so would dry up the legal fees.
Thus, both parents are left trapped in a zero-sum game orchestrated by their so-called “legal advocates”, who turn a dispute over children into an interminable war with no victors, only casualties—most tragically, the children themselves.
The Legal Industry as the Root Cause
The South African family law system is not broken by accident—it has been deliberately broken by a profession that profits from dysfunction. Far from being neutral arbiters, lawyers in these cases act as self-serving agents of chaos. They weaponise parental conflict, obstruct amicable resolutions, and abuse their position of perceived authority to advance their financial gain under the guise of law.
It is time we call this what it is: legal abuse. It is time fathers—and indeed all parents—demand accountability from legal professionals who no longer serve the best interests of children or the cause of justice.
Lawyers’ correspondence must always aim to de-escalate conflict and resolve matters swiftly, in the best interests of the child and both parents.
We recommend writing to both attorneys with the following request:
“Both legal representatives are hereby formally requested to set out, in writing, a clear and cooperative strategy that details how they will jointly work to de-escalate the current conflict, minimise emotional and financial harm to the child and both parents and remove the entire family from the legal justice system in less than six months. This strategy must include a mutual commitment to cooperation between both attorneys, with clearly defined steps and timelines, and be documented in a binding written agreement. It is expected that this plan prioritises the best interests of the child, reduces litigation to an absolute minimum, and fosters an environment in which both parents can resume their parental responsibilities without further legal interference or prolonged adversarial proceedings.“
Should one or both of the lawyers fail to abide by it find other attorneys. Simple not complicated once enough parents ask for this lawyers and advocates will be COMPELLED to abide by this if they want work.
So long as lawyers are able to act with impunity nothing will change. So we as the broader society MUST force change.
What Lawyers Can and Cannot Do Under South African Law
Lawyers Are Not Judicial Officers
Under South African law, attorneys and advocates—collectively known as legal practitioners— DO NOT have the authority to issue instructions to private citizens that carry the force of law. Only courts and recognised tribunals are empowered to make binding decisions.
Simply put if the lawyer wants you to carry out an instruction THEY MUST approach the courts to issue said instruction and you have the FULL LEGAL RIGHT to oppose it.
🔖 Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, Section 35(5):
“A legal practitioner may not act for a person unless duly instructed.”
They are agents of their clients, not enforcers of the law.
🔖 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, Section 34:
“Everyone has the right to have any dispute… decided in a fair public hearing before a court…”
Implication: If a lawyer demands action from you that has not been ordered by a court, you are under no obligation to comply.
Only Courts May Issue Binding Contact Arrangements
The Children’s Act 38 of 2005 governs all matters related to child care, contact, guardianship, and maintenance. Only a court, applying the provisions of this Act, may make decisions regarding:
Such as but not limited to
- Supervised contact
- Reunification therapy
- Enforcement or Restrictions on communication or address disclosure
🔖 Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Sections 23 & 24:
Only courts can assign or restrict parental responsibilities and rights.
🔖 Section 28(2) of the Constitution:
“A child’s best interests are of paramount importance…”
This must be assessed and enforced through legal due process.
Analysing a Real Example of Legal Overreach
A recent letter from a South African law firm, acting on behalf of a mother, instructed the father a member of Fathers 4 Justice South Africa as follows:
- That contact with the children “must” occur under the supervision of a third-party therapist at a named facility;
- That the father must submit to an initial consultation before contact is permitted;
- That he must provide his South African address and contact number;
- That he must not communicate directly with the mother;
- That all future correspondence must go through the law firm.
- No offer of Alternative Dispute resolution/mediation simply ignoring the SIX clauses from the Children Act reiterating mediation. They are Sections 21, 33, 49, 70, 71, and 150 of the Children’s Act). Sections 70 and 71 give magistrates and judges specific directions on enforcing mediation.
These “instructions” were delivered with urgency and authority—implying imminent legal consequences. However, no court order was referenced. No parenting plan, mediation report, or formal ruling was attached. The demands were presented as facts, not proposals.
Why the Letter Was Unlawful
1. Assumption of Judicial Authority
The lawyer, under the instruction of the mother, attempted to appoint a supervisor and dictate contact conditions without any legal basis. This is an act of ultra vires—beyond their powers. (In law, “ultra vires” translates to “beyond the power” or “beyond one’s jurisdiction”. It refers to any action taken by a person, organization, or government that exceeds their legal authority or powers. An ultra vires act is considered invalid because the actor lacked the necessary legal authority to perform it)
🔖 Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Section 33:
Parenting plans must be agreed by both parties and endorsed by the Family Advocate and made a final order of Court.
🔖 Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Section 45:
Disputes involving contact must be referred to the Family Court.
2. Misrepresentation of Legal Force
The use of words such as “must” and “it is our instruction that” imply a binding obligation. This is misleading and violates the rules of professional conduct.
🔖 Legal Practice Council Code of Conduct, Rule 34:
Legal practitioners must refrain from misrepresenting facts or the law to unrepresented parties.
3. Interference with Parental Rights
Without a court order, no one—not even a lawyer acting for a parent—may restrict a father’s contact, dictate supervision, or compel address disclosure.
🔖 Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Section 30(2):
“A person who does not have full parental responsibilities and rights… may not exercise such rights…”
Fathers’ Rights Abused: The Real-World Consequences
In this case, the father was treated as a subordinate participant, inferior to the constitution and law of South Africa —despite being currently still married and having equal parental rights. He was accused of being unavailable and emotionally harmful to the children, without a single shred of evidence offered and submitted before a court.
This is a tactic ALWAYS used against fathers: fabricate urgency, weaponise perception, and coerce through intimidation. These legal letters are not neutral communications; they are lawfare—the use of legal mechanisms as weapons.
Left unchallenged, this abuse can escalate into supervised visitation, restricted contact, and long-term alienation from one’s children.All of which is emotional, psychological and mental child abuse and MOST CERTAINLY not in the best interest of the child.
What Recourse Does the Father Have?
1. Reject the Demands in Writing
He is legally entitled to respond by asserting that no court has issued the directives in question and that he will not comply with instructions presented without a lawful basis.
Example Letter
Disclaimer:
This letter is provided solely as an example and does not constitute legal advice. You use it entirely at your own discretion and risk. Fathers 4 Justice South Africa accepts no liability for any consequences arising from its use. We strongly recommend that you seek independent legal guidance before taking any action.
For the full legal notice, please refer to the complete disclaimer at the end of this article
2. Report the Lawyer to the Legal Practice Council
If the letter falsely implies judicial authority or exerts undue pressure, a complaint can be lodged with the Legal Practice Council:
3. Seek Legal Enforcement of His Rights
Should the mother continue to obstruct contact, the father can apply under the Children’s Act for an order granting defined contact, including overnight stays or holiday access.
🔖 Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Section 28(1)(b):
“A person with parental responsibilities and rights may apply to the court to enforce those rights.”
THE CONUNDRUM OF FATHERHOOD UNDER LEGAL DURESS: A STATEMENT ON SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF RIGHTS
At Fathers 4Justice South Africa (F4J SA), we are acutely aware of the devastating conundrum that many fathers face: to see your child, you must first submit to conditions that are unlawful, degrading, dehumanising, and entirely without due process. These conditions are constantly and arbitrarily imposed by attorneys acting beyond their mandate, and in clear violation of the law and Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and other applicable statutes. Yet if the father refuses to comply with these humiliating demands, his refusal is weaponised against him in court — held up as evidence that he is unwilling or unfit to parent.
This is the abuse of legal process — and it is not incidental. It is deliberate, malicious, and orchestrated with precision by legal professionals who act not as officers of the court, but as self-appointed arbiters, bypassing judicial scrutiny and overriding constitutional supremacy.
1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK BEING VIOLATED
The following rights of the father — and, equally, the rights of the child — are routinely, deliberately and violently violated:
A. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
- Section 10 – Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected. Requiring a father to see his children under humiliating, unsupported conditions undermines his dignity in the most fundamental manner.
- Section 12(1)(a) – Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause. The imposition of supervised contact without a court order is arbitrary and lacks just cause.
- Section 18 – Everyone has the right to freedom of association. A child’s relationship with their parent falls under this protection; any interference without lawful grounds is unconstitutional.
- Section 21(1) – Everyone has the right to freedom of movement. Denying a parent the right to travel freely for contact with their child infringes this right.
- Section 28(1)(b) – Every child has the right to family care or parental care. Obstructing a child’s contact with a willing and capable parent undermines the child’s right.
- Section 28(2) – A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. This principle is regularly abused as a weapon against fathers without evidence, often substituting ideology for fact.
B. Children’s Act 38 of 2005
- Section 6(4)(b) – In any matter concerning a child, an approach which minimises legal intervention and avoids confrontation between the parties must be followed. Lawyers who issue threats and impose unilateral conditions on contact exacerbate conflict and contravene this section.
- Section 31(2) – A co-holder of parental responsibilities and rights must be consulted when making major decisions. Unilaterally deciding the conditions of contact without the father’s consent is unlawful.
- Section 33 – Parties must attempt to agree on parenting plans before litigation. Attorneys often bypass this process and impose their own ‘instructions’ as if they were orders of court.
- Section 35(1) – A person with parental responsibilities may approach the court if they are being denied such responsibilities or rights. This confirms that only a court may determine and limit parental rights — not legal practitioners acting as de facto judges.
2. THE MALICIOUS STRATEGY OF LEGAL AMBUSH
What makes this conundrum particularly insidious is that it is ALWAYS calculated. Letters from attorneys are frequently issued at the final hour after fathers have already incurred costs for flights, accommodation, and logistical arrangements. These letters then impose unlawful conditions, such as supervised contact, without any judicial order or evidentiary basis.
This practice constitutes abuse of process, emotional blackmail, and procedural ambush — all in knowing anticipation that should the father refuse these unlawful terms, his “non-compliance” will be falsely presented as abandonment or irresponsibility. This is a deliberate entrapment strategy designed to manufacture an artificial legal advantage for one party.
Attorneys engaging in such conduct act in breach of their ethical and professional duties under the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, specifically:
- Section 34(1) – Legal practitioners must act in the interests of justice and uphold the Constitution.
- Section 35 – A legal practitioner must refrain from conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine the dignity of the court.
Such conduct violates Rule 3.1 and Rule 3.3 of the Legal Practice Council’s Code of Conduct, which demands fairness, dignity, and respect for the rule of law.
3. THE F4J SA POSITION: DO NOT ABANDON EVEN ONE SECOND OF CONTACT
At Fathers 4 Justice South Africa, we stand firm: even if you are granted one second of contact a year, you must fight to exercise that right. It is not a reflection on your worth, but rather a testament to the depth of systemic bias that such conditions are imposed at all.
We fully understand the psychological violence and institutional abuse this entails. We understand that the courts routinely fail to intervene, and lawyers take full advantage of this absence of accountability. However, your ability to show that you endured violent injustice to be present for your child often carries great weight in future proceedings.
This is the tragic and unacceptable conundrum of fatherhood in South Africa: comply with abuse or risk being labelled absent. But know this — the abuse is not legal, it is not constitutional, and it will not withstand scrutiny in the long term. We continue to fight for the abolition of such practices and the restoration of equal parenting rights.
4. What to do
We urge all fathers to document every violation, record every unlawful demand, and challenge every unconstitutional instruction. Do so calmly, legally, and persistently. We will support you.
We call upon the courts, the Legal Practice Council, and the Department of Justice to investigate and root out these abusive legal strategies that continue to weaponise fatherhood and perpetuate emotional and constitutional injustice.
Upholding Justice Requires Standing Firm
This serves as a warning to all parents—specifically fathers—not to be intimidated by attorneys acting beyond their lawful authority. The law is clear: only courts can decide on contact, care, maintenance, guardianship and supervision. Any other communication, no matter how official it may appear, is simply a proposal. You are well within your rights to reject it.
Legal practitioners who attempt to enforce client wishes through intimidation tactics violate both ethical and legal standards. Fathers should never accept second-class treatment or coercion disguised as legal procedure. The path forward is lawful resistance, formal complaints, and if necessary, direct court action.
Remember, asserting your parental rights is not aggression—it is self-defence in the face of systemic bias and professional overreach.
Conclusion
It must be unequivocally stated that only judicial officers—namely, magistrates and judges—possess the constitutional and statutory authority to issue binding legal orders to private citizens in South Africa. No legal practitioner, including attorneys or advocates, holds such authority under South African law.
This fundamental principle is grounded in Section 165 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, which reads:
“The judicial authority of the Republic is vested in the courts.”
“No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the courts.”
This constitutional provision affirms that only courts may issue binding rulings or orders, and such orders are delivered through presiding officers, being magistrates or judges. These officers act under the authority of statutory legislation such as:
- The Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944; and
- The Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
Specifically:
- Under Section 2 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, jurisdiction and authority to issue court orders are conferred solely upon magistrates.
- Under Section 8 of the Superior Courts Act, judges of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal may make binding determinations or orders of court.
By contrast, legal practitioners—whether acting as correspondents, attorneys, or advocates—serve in a representative advisory capacity only. Their communications do not constitute orders of court, and they cannot compel compliance from a private individual without a duly stamped and authorised court order.
This principle was affirmed in S v Suliman 1969 (2) SA 385 (A), where it was made clear that legal practitioners cannot act as judicial officers, nor may they cloak correspondence with the appearance of legal compulsion absent a judicial ruling.
In the matter raised by the correspondence Thuggs x & Robbers Attorneys dated 30 April 2025, it is legally improper and misleading to assert or imply that a private individual is obliged to:
- Submit to reunification therapy;
- Accept the instructions or arrangements made by a third-party service (e.g. Child Assist);
- Cease direct communication with the other party in favour of legal intermediaries;
Uless such conditions have been ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
To be absolutely clear: no legal practitioner may impose terms, obligations, or restrictions upon a private citizen without a court-issued directive. Any such action, no matter how strongly worded in letterhead, carries no legal force and must be treated as mere opinion or proposal unless validated by judicial order.
The Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, which governs the conduct of attorneys and advocates, affirms in Section 33(1) that legal practitioners may only act as representatives of their clients and are not officers of the court in a judicial capacity. They may not purport to issue or enforce directives.
To that end, it is essential to distinguish:
- A “court order”: A directive issued by a magistrate or judge under lawful jurisdiction.
- A “lawyer’s letter”: A client’s instruction communicated through a legal practitioner; it is not binding unless and until ratified by the court.
Any attempt by a legal practitioner to present a client’s instruction as a court directive is both misleading and potentially unethical and constitutes professional misconduct under the Legal Practice Council’s Code of Conduct.
Private citizens are under no legal obligation to comply with lawyers’ demands, legal correspondence, or “instructions” unless such demands are confirmed by a valid court order issued by a magistrate or judge acting within their constitutional and statutory authority.
We therefore state in the strongest possible terms that:
- Attorneys and advocates possess no legal authority to issue instructions enforceable upon private citizens.
- Only judges and magistrates, acting under Section 165 of the Constitution, may issue binding legal orders.
- No Act or clause in South African law grants a lawyer the right to instruct a citizen absent judicial oversight.
If you receive letters purporting to direct your conduct or issue terms for compliance without court endorsement, such correspondence may lawfully be ignored or challenged as legally invalid.
Should you require further detail, consult the following Acts:
- The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 – Section 165
- Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 – Section 2
- Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – Section 8
- Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 – Section 33
Contact Us: Fathers 4 Justice South Africa
For guidance, support, or legal assistance, contact us:
Chairman
The Official Fathers 4 Justice South Africa
📞 WhatsApp: 066 331 8972
📧 Email: info@f4j.co.za
🌐 Website: https://www.f4j.co.za/home
🔗 LinkedIn: Fathers 4 Justice SA LinkedIn
📘 Facebook: Fathers 4 Justice SA Facebook
🐦 Twitter: Fathers 4 Justice SA Twitter
For any Queries and Assistance, feel free to reach out via email or WhatsApp
#Custody #fathersrights #equalrights #childrensrights #familylaw #divorce #parentingrights #constitution #familycourt #custody # Fathersparentalrightsandresponsibilities #Fathershelpline #whatrightsdoesafatherhave #childcustody #divorce #law #genderbias #fathersrights #mothers #children #parentingrights #discrimination #familycourt #familylaw #legalreform #socialjustice #equalrights #jointcustody #endbias #reformnow #5050custody #unitethefamily #allfamiliesmatter #fatherlessness #childrensrights #saveoursons #ParentalRights #CustodyRights #CoParenting #LegalAdvice #FamilyLaw #ChildCustody #FatherhoodRights #FalseAccusations #MaintenanceDisputes #LegalFAQs#FamilyLaw #MediationAdvocacy #Fathers4Justice #ParentingPlan #LegalReform #DivorceResolution #CustodyRights #EfficientMediation #LegalAccountability #Curatorpersonae #familyadvocatejohannesburg #childcustody #advematheofjusticesouthafrica #Curatorbonis #curatoradlitem #Visitation #Fathersrights #Fathersresponsibilities #divorce #Guardianship #Contact #Care #Custody #Childcustody #Custodyofthechild #childmaintenance #guardianadlitem #curatoradlitem #Voiceofthechild #divorcemediationsouthafrica #fathersrights #fathersrightsinsouthafrica #howdivorceaffectschildren #howtogetaletterofguardianship #guardianship #divorcemediation #divorcemediationnearme #Maintenance #Maintenanceissues #Maintenanceproblems #familylaw #familycourtsouthafrica #fathers4justice #familylawsouthafrica #parentsrights #unmarriedfathersrightsinsouthafrica #visitationrightsforfathersinsouthafrica #whendoesafatherloseparentalrightssouthafrica #legalguardianshipdocument #familylawyersnearme #custodyofchildtofather #unmarriedfathersrights #parentingplan #parentingplanexample #parentingplanssouthafrica #Parentalalienation #Parentalalienationsyndrome #PAS #DSM5
LEGAL DISCLAIMER NOTICE
IMPORTANT: READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY BEFORE USING ANY OF THE PROVIDED TEMPLATES OR INFORMATION
The legal articles, templates and guidance provided herein are strictly for educational and informational purposes only. They do not constitute formal legal advice, legal representation, or a legally binding consultation. Users are strongly advised to seek professional legal counsel before relying on any information contained in these documents.
By accessing, using, or referring to these articles and templates, you acknowledge and expressly agree that:
- No Attorney-Client Relationship – The use of these materials does not establish any attorney-client, consultant-client, or fiduciary relationship between the user and Fathers 4 Justice South Africa (F4J SA), its Chairman (in his personal or official capacity), its members, or any affiliated service providers. Should you abuse the information contained herein, F4J SA will take legal steps to protect itself. All costs will automatically be for your account.
- Independent Legal Verification Required – Users must obtain independent legal advice from a qualified attorney before taking any legal action based on the information provided in this article and these templates. F4J SA and its representatives do not assume responsibility for any inaccuracies, outdated legal references, or jurisdictional variances in law.
- No Liability for Use – Fathers 4 Justice South Africa, its Chairman, its members, and affiliated service providers are fully absolved of any and all legal responsibility, liability, claims, damages, or consequences—whether direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential—that arise from the use, misuse, or reliance on these templates or any information provided.
- No Endorsement or Warranty – The information and templates are provided “as is” with no warranty, guarantee, or endorsement of their applicability, validity, or enforceability. Users assume full risk for any legal actions, filings, or proceedings undertaken based on these articles and documents.
- Jurisdictional Differences – Legal procedures vary across jurisdictions, and these templates may not be suitable for your specific case, province, or country. You are solely responsible for ensuring compliance with the relevant legal standards and procedural rules applicable to your matter.
By continuing to access or use this information and or these templates, you irrevocably waive any claims against Fathers 4 Justice South Africa, its Chairman, members, and service providers. If you do not agree with these terms, you must immediately cease using these materials.