A.C v J.E.C and Another (32126/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 273 (29 April 2016)

A.C v J.E.C and Another (32126/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 273 (29 April 2016)

The Court finds that, pending the finalisation of the divorce, the applicant and first respondent should share residency and parental responsibilities over the three minor children. There is no evidence that the first respondent is incapable or unfit to care for the children. Expert reports do not justify altering the shared arrangement. The appointment of a case manager is necessary to mediate disputes and oversee the implementation of the residency and contact arrangements. The best interests of the children require that siblings are not unnecessarily separated and that both parents are involved in their upbringing.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 273
Parties
Applicant: A C; Respondent: J E C; Respondent: THE FAMILY ADVOCATE
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Case Number
32126/2015
Procedural Posture
Rule 43 Application / Final Interim Relief Pending Divorce
Outcome
Application granted in part; shared residency and parental responsibilities ordered pending divorce.
Judges
Madima
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Primary Residence of Minor Children, Shared Residency, Case Manager Appointment, Rule 43 Interim Relief
Family and Children Parental Responsibilities and Rights Primary Residence of Minor Children Shared Residency Case Manager Appointment Rule 43 Interim Relief

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A C

Applicant

J E C

Respondent

THE FAMILY ADVOCATE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rule 43 Application / Final Interim Relief Pending Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the applicant and first respondent share residency over the three minor children pending finalisation of the divorce?
  2. 2 Is it in the best interests of the minor children to be separated under the current arrangements?
  3. 3 Should a case manager be appointed to oversee disputes and arrangements regarding the minor children?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court finds that, pending the finalisation of the divorce, the applicant and first respondent should share residency and parental responsibilities over the three minor children. There is no evidence that the first respondent is incapable or unfit to care for the children. Expert reports do not justify altering the shared arrangement. The appointment of a case manager is necessary to mediate disputes and oversee the implementation of the residency and contact arrangements. The best interests of the children require that siblings are not unnecessarily separated and that both parents are involved in their upbringing.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; shared residency and parental responsibilities ordered pending divorce.

Orders

  • A case manager, an advocate with at least 7 years' child law experience, to be appointed by the Chairman of the Pretoria Bar for the minor children.
  • Applicant and first respondent to share costs of the case manager equally.