A.J v F.J (2024/001162) [2024] ZAGPJHC 997 (4 October 2024)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Part B (relocation and Variation of Custody Orders)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the applicant (mother) should be permitted to permanently remove the minor children from South Africa to Australia.
2. 2 Whether the respondent's (father's) consent to the children's removal should be dispensed with.
3. 3 What contact and guardianship arrangements should apply post-relocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is and has always been the primary caregiver and attachment figure for the minor children, and her reasons for relocation are bona fide and reasonable. The Family Advocate and Family Counsellor recommended that the applicant be permitted to relocate with the children, and both children expressed their wish to move. The respondent's opposition was found to be unjustified, and his counter-application was dismissed. The court held that the best interests of the children are served by allowing the relocation, with both parties retaining parental responsibilities and rights, and the applicant maintaining primary residence. The respondent's consent for removal...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Applicant permitted to relocate with minor children to Australia. Respondent's counter-application dismissed. Costs awarded against respondent on attorney and client scale.

Orders

• Paragraphs 2.4 to 2.4.7 and 2.5 of the Settlement Agreement are deleted and replaced as per the judgment.
• Both parties retain full parental responsibilities and rights regarding care, contact, and maintenance of the minor children as per Section 18(2)(a), (b), and (d) of the Children's Act.