A Zimbabwean woman living in Australia has lost a High Court bid to take custody of her nine-year-old daughter from her former husband in Zimbabwe and move the...
A Zimbabwean woman living in Australia has lost a High Court bid to take custody of her nine-year-old daughter from her former husband in Zimbabwe and move the child to Australia.
Justice Fatima Maxwell, sitting at the High Court in Harare, awarded sole custody of the minor child, identified as A.R, to her father, Brian Sunguro. The court granted the mother, Abigal Manyati, access during alternate school holidays and regular virtual contact with the child.
The court also ordered Manyati to pay US$200 per month in maintenance, while requiring her to contribute 50 percent of the child’s school fees directly to the school and provide all school uniforms.
Advertisement
The custody dispute followed the separation of the former couple, who were married under the then Marriage Act. The two have no shared property, with the dispute before the court focusing on custody, access and maintenance of their daughter.
Manyati relocated to Australia in 2017 to pursue nursing studies and is now employed there. According to the information before the court, she earns between 50,000 and 70,000 Australian dollars a year, equivalent to about US$32,500 to US$42,500.
She had asked the court to award her sole custody of the child and allow the daughter to join her in Australia. Manyati also offered to pay US$100 per month towards the child’s maintenance.
Her former husband opposed the application and sought sole custody. Sunguro argued that he had cared for the child in Zimbabwe since January 2017 and that she was settled in school and in his household.
The court found that Manyati’s decision to relocate to Australia had been aimed at building a better future for the family. However, Justice Maxwell noted that she had been physically absent from the child’s life for about nine years.
The judge noted that the child had been raised in Zimbabwe by her father and extended family and had become settled in her existing environment. The court held that moving her to Australia would cause instability and that her best interests required her to remain in the stable environment she knew.
The court also considered Manyati’s immigration status in Australia. During cross-examination, she conceded that she does not have permanent residency in Australia and that her current visa expires in October 2027 and would therefore require renewal.
Justice Maxwell held that the best interests of the child, as provided for under section 81(2) of the Constitution, required the child to remain in Zimbabwe in the environment where she had been raised.
Although custody was awarded to Sunguro, the court granted Manyati physical access to her daughter during alternate school holidays. She will be responsible for all travel costs associated with exercising that access.
The court placed a condition on any travel by the child to Australia. Such travel will only be permitted if Manyati provides verifiable proof that her Australian visa has been renewed beyond October 2027.
The court also ordered structured virtual contact between Manyati and her daughter through platforms including WhatsApp, Skype, Zoom or any other platform agreed to by the parents. The virtual contact is intended to help rebuild and maintain the mother-daughter relationship.
On maintenance, the court rejected both amounts proposed by the parties. Manyati had offered US$100 per month, while Sunguro had sought US$650 per month.
Justice Maxwell found the mother’s proposed amount too low and the father’s claim excessive. The court therefore considered the needs of the child against the financial means of both parents before settling on US$200 per month.
Under the maintenance order, Manyati must pay US$200 every month, contribute half of the child’s school fees directly to the school and provide all school uniforms. Both parents are required to contribute equally towards the child’s casual clothing.
Sunguro was ordered to pay the child’s medical aid and meet her day-to-day living expenses and accommodation.
The court also imposed restrictions on the child’s movement. Neither parent may remove the child from Zimbabwe without the prior written and notarised consent of the other parent.
The child must also remain at her current school unless both parents agree to a change.
The court ordered each party to bear their own legal costs, bringing the custody, access and maintenance dispute to an end with the child remaining in Zimbabwe under her father’s sole custody.
