Explore a nuanced view on child custody disputes involving domestic violence allegations in South Africa. This article for psychologists delves into the complexities of the family court system, the potential for rehabilitation, and the importance of assessing change and safety for reunification, even after serious accusations.
A Different Perspective on Custody, Domestic Violence Allegations, and Reunification
By Joan Kloth-Zanard, MFT, ADA, GAL
July 7, 2026
There is no doubt that the family court system is flawed. There is no doubt that better education and training are necessary. And there is no doubt that corruption, bias, and institutional failures may sometimes play a role in the outcome’s families experience.
However, acknowledging those realities does not negate another fundamental truth: children generally deserve the opportunity to have healthy relationships with both parents whenever it can be done safely and responsibly.
Even when serious allegations have been made, the question should not simply be whether mistakes occurred in the past, but whether meaningful change, rehabilitation, and safe reunification are possible. Sometimes that may require supervised visitation, therapeutic intervention, parenting classes, or other safeguards. But we know from countless examples throughout society that people can change. Former offenders rebuild their lives. Individuals struggling with addiction recover. Veterans suffering from PTSD learn coping mechanisms and develop healthy ways to manage their triggers and emotions. If we accept that growth and rehabilitation are possible for these individuals, why should we automatically assume that a parent accused or even convicted of domestic violence is incapable of change?
Another issue often overlooked in public discussions is the reality of plea bargains in the US. Many people assume that a guilty plea is definitive proof that the underlying allegations are true. In reality, the criminal justice system is far more complicated.
Every year, individuals accept plea deals not because they are guilty, but because they lack the financial resources to defend themselves at trial. Faced with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the possibility of losing employment, mounting family obligations, and the uncertainty of a jury trial, some defendants conclude that accepting a plea deal is the least damaging option available. The practical realities of the system can create powerful incentives to plead guilty regardless of actual guilt.
Furthermore, even if a domestic violence allegation is legitimate, we rarely know the full context from a brief court summary. Human relationships are complex. It is possible for one person to engage in manipulative, provoking, or psychologically abusive behaviour that contributes to conflict. This does not excuse violence or inappropriate conduct, but understanding the circumstances surrounding an incident matter when evaluating future risk and determining whether a parent can be safely involved in a child's life moving forward.
My own experience illustrates why caution should be exercised before treating plea bargains as unquestionable proof of guilt.
I was falsely accused of a crime I did not commit. Initially, because I was in severe financial distress and could not afford what would have been approximately $25,000 in trial expenses, I agreed to a plea agreement that carried minimal consequences. From my perspective, it was the only financially realistic option.
After I fulfilled my part of the agreement, however, the state withdrew the offer and informed me that the only plea bargain they would consider was one requiring me to serve two and a half years in jail for a crime I knew I had not committed.
At that point, I decided to fight.
The process lasted six years. Ultimately, the jury deliberated for less than fifteen minutes before finding me not guilty. During trial it became clear that the prosecution had lost multiple pieces of evidence, including police videos and reports. Witness testimony was inconsistent, and key witnesses ultimately admitted facts that supported my innocence. In fact, my case is one of malicious prosecution and civil rights violations.
My experience taught me a difficult lesson: the justice system is operated by human beings, and human beings make mistakes. Evidence can be mishandled. Investigations can be flawed. Prosecutors can overreach. Financial pressure can push innocent people toward plea agreements they otherwise would never consider. For these reasons, the existence of a plea bargain should not automatically end the conversation about what actually happened.
Ultimately, discussions about family court should focus on two goals simultaneously: protecting children and preserving healthy parental relationships whenever possible.
Child safety must always come first. If a parent presents a genuine danger, appropriate protections should remain in place. But if a parent demonstrates rehabilitation, completes counselling, follows court orders, learns healthier coping mechanisms, and consistently shows positive behaviour over time, courts should remain open to the possibility of reunification.
The purpose of the system should not be to serve as permanent punishment. It should be the protection of children while encouraging accountability, growth, and healing. Children deserve safety, but they also deserve the chance—when circumstances permit—to have meaningful relationships with both parents.
A just system must be able to recognize both truths at the same time.
ABUSE IS NOT GENDER SPECIFIC