A.B v D.B (4001/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 56 (26 October 2015)

A.B v D.B (4001/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 56 (26 October 2015)

The court found that the applicant's urgency was self-serving and did not warrant urgent relief. The respondent's apprehension that the trip abroad was a ruse to sever his contact with the children was well-founded, given the applicant's history of denying access and disregarding court orders. The court held that the best interests of the minor children did not require travel abroad, and staying at home would not negatively affect their well-being. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAECPEHC 56
Parties
Applicant: A.B.; Respondent: D.B.
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2015
Case Number
4001/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Compel Respondent to Sign Visa Documentation for Minor Children; Heard and Judgment Delivered.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Guardianship, Parental Consent for Travel, Best Interests of Child, Visitation Rights
Family and Children Guardianship Parental Consent for Travel Best Interests of Child Visitation Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.B.

Applicant

D.B.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Compel Respondent to Sign Visa Documentation for Minor Children; Heard and Judgment Delivered.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be compelled to sign visa and travel documentation for the minor children to travel abroad with the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's request is bona fide or a ruse to sever contact between the respondent and the children.
  3. 3 Whether the application is urgent and justified in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's urgency was self-serving and did not warrant urgent relief. The respondent's apprehension that the trip abroad was a ruse to sever his contact with the children was well-founded, given the applicant's history of denying access and disregarding court orders. The court held that the best interests of the minor children did not require travel abroad, and staying at home would not negatively affect their well-being. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.