CS v CS (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-MAT 179 of 2017) [2021] NAHCMD 170 (12 April 2021)

CS v CS (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-MAT 179 of 2017) [2021] NAHCMD 170 (12 April 2021)

The plaintiff, as the primary caregiver, has acted in the best interests of the child, and her intention to relocate is bona fide and reasonable. The defendant's allegations of alcohol abuse and unfitness were not substantiated by credible evidence or expert findings. The best interests of the child are served by remaining in the custody of the plaintiff and relocating with her to Stellenbosch, with reasonable access to the defendant and appropriate maintenance arrangements. Refusing relocation would negatively impact the emotional and psychological well-being of the plaintiff, which would in turn affect the child.

Citation
[2021] NAHCMD 170
Parties
Plaintiff: CS (Born S); Defendant: CS
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-ACT-MAT 179 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Matrimonial (custody/relocation) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to relocate with minor child; custody and control awarded to plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; maintenance and access orders issued; costs to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Custody of Minor Child, Relocation of Minor Child, Best Interests of the Child, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Maintenance, Access/visitation, Expert Evidence
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Law Custody of Minor Child Relocation of Minor Child Best Interests of the Child Parental Rights and Responsibilities Maintenance Access/visitation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CS (Born S)

Plaintiff

CS

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Matrimonial (custody/relocation) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to relocate with the minor child to South Africa
  2. 2 Whether custody and control of the minor child should be awarded to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's allegations of alcohol abuse and unfitness against the plaintiff are substantiated

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, as the primary caregiver, has acted in the best interests of the child, and her intention to relocate is bona fide and reasonable. The defendant's allegations of alcohol abuse and unfitness were not substantiated by credible evidence or expert findings. The best interests of the child are served by remaining in the custody of the plaintiff and relocating with her to Stellenbosch, with reasonable access to the defendant and appropriate maintenance arrangements. Refusing relocation would negatively impact the emotional and psychological well-being of the plaintiff, which would in turn affect the child.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to relocate with minor child; custody and control awarded to plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; maintenance and access orders issued; costs to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.
  • Custody and control of the minor child awarded to the plaintiff subject to defendant’s reasonable rights of access as detailed in Annexure A.