Family ordered to reveal location of violent man after hiding him to avoid psychiatric admission

High Court orders family to reveal location of brain-injured man amid safety concerns. The North West High Court in Mahikeng has ordered three family members to disclose the whereabouts of a brain-injured man and to stop obstructing court-appointed officials, after finding that their conduct endangered both the patient and others. The recent ruling comes after Ewan Carter Smith was appointed as the curator bonis (guardian of goods)responsible for managing the patient’s financial and legal affairs.

The issue came when Smith could not find the patient. The patient sustained a severe traumatic brain injury in a car accident in 2010, and he sustained a severe paediatric traumatic brain injury, including cerebral contusions and a skull fracture. A neurosurgeon and clinical psychologistconfirmed that he sustained permanent neuropsychological difficulties.

Consequently, in December 2017, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria declared the patient incapable of managing his own affairs. Smith was appointed as curator bonis in September 2021, an appointment challenged by the man’s family. Since his appointment, Smith told the court that his efforts to locate and consult with the patient have been systematically frustrated by his family.

[paywall]

He said he tried to get help from private investigators to trace the patient, but these efforts were unsuccessful due to the family’s refusal to cooperate. The court heard evidence that the patient had a history of violent and aggressive behaviour, including incidents involving knives at school, and that medical professionals had recommended psychiatric admission, which his family refused. Social workers and therapists were also denied access to the patient on multiple occasions.

Of particular concern to the court were threats allegedly made by his family against court officials and medical staff. In one email, one of the family members reportedly warned the officials that anyone sent to the patient “will not come back,” prompting the court to describe the conduct as unlawful and dangerous. As expected, the family opposed the application, arguing that the proceedings should be stayed pending a rescission application challenging earlier court orders appointing the curator bonis and curatrix ad litem (guardian for the lawsuit).

However, Acting Deputy Judge Andre Henry Petersen ruled that their opposition failed because they had not brought a formal counter-application for a stay. Judge Petersen held that the patient’s best interests were paramount and that continued concealment of his whereabouts posed a serious risk to his safety and the safety of others.

[/paywall]