A parent asserts absolute ownership over children, claiming the right to remove them without regard to the other parent or the child's rights
Premiumadvanced8 minutes
The Situation
What They Said
“I can take the children wherever I want — they are mine and you have no say.”
This phrase is used by one parent in a separated or disputed household to claim unilateral authority over where the children live or travel, often while trying to prevent the other parent from having any involvement or information.
The Fallacy
False Ownership / Appeal to Possession
This argument treats children as property of a parent rather than as persons with their own rights. The premise that children 'belong' to a parent in the same way physical possessions do is legally and morally false. South African law regards children as persons with constitutionally protected rights, and the right of each parent to be involved in the child's life is protected — as is the child's right to maintain a relationship with both parents.
What the Law Says
Your Legal Foundation
Children's Act 38 of 2005
Section 18(2) — Parental Responsibilities and Rights — Co-Holders
“The parental responsibilities and rights that a person may have in respect of a child include the right to care for the child; to maintain contact with the child; to act as guardian of the child; to contribute to the maintenance of the child.”
Where both parents hold parental responsibilities and rights, neither parent can unilaterally relocate or remove a child without the other parent's consent or a court order.
Children's Act 38 of 2005
Section 65 — Removal of Children Without Consent
“No person may remove a child from the Republic without the consent of every person who has parental responsibilities and rights in respect of that child or without the order of a competent court.”
Taking a child without the consent of the other parent or a court order may constitute unlawful removal — a criminal and civil matter.
What Scripture Says
God's Word on This
1 Kings 3:26-27 (NET)
“The real mother spoke to the king because her motherly instincts were aroused for her son. She said, 'Please, my master, give her the living child — do not kill him!' ... The king responded, 'Give the first woman the living child; do not kill him. She is the mother.'”
Solomon's wisdom recognised that the parent who truly loves a child prioritises the child's life and wellbeing over claiming possession — the test of true parental love is what is best for the child.
Psalm 127:3 (NET)
“Yes, sons are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward.”
Children are described as a gift from God — stewardship of a gift implies responsibility for their welfare, not ownership rights that override their personhood.
🔒
You Know the Law — But Do You Know What to Say?
Reading your rights is one thing. Using them under pressure — calmly, correctly, in the right words — is what actually protects you. Members get the scripted rebuttal for this exact situation: what to say first, what to say if they push back, the tone to use, and the constitutional provision to cite. Practise out loud with audio until it's automatic.
Identity & Dignity and Gender & Equality are free · All 17 domains from R89/month · Cancel anytime
Not ready to subscribe? Get the free checklist first.
10 South African rights scenarios — what to say, what to cite, what to refuse. Free, no card needed.
What They'll Say Next
Common Counter-Arguments
After you respond, they may push back with these arguments. Members get the full rebuttal for each.
They might say: “I have primary residence — I can take the children anywhere.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
They might say: “Under our customary law, the children belong to the father's family.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
Know Your Rights. Know Your Word.
149 South African rights scenarios — exact rebuttals, constitutional law, and Scripture. Practise out loud with audio. Free to start with 2 full domains.