A.J.H v A.H (23610/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 495 (29 June 2018)

A.J.H v A.H (23610/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 495 (29 June 2018)

The applicant initiated urgent proceedings to change the residence of the minor children without first attempting mediation or amendment of the existing parenting plan. The reports from the Family Advocate and Irma Schutte recommended that both parents continue to exercise joint parental responsibilities, with residence remaining with the respondent. The applicant's complaint regarding denial of telephone contact was not persistent or serious enough to warrant a change in residence. The applicant failed to make out a case for the variation of the parenting plan, and the respondent was entitled to costs for Part A due to the applicant's conduct. The best interests of the children required...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 495
Parties
Applicant: A J H; Respondent: A H
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Case Number
23610/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Application and Counter Application to Vary Parenting Plan
Outcome
Application for variation of the parenting plan (Part B) dismissed with costs; applicant ordered to pay taxed costs of Part A.
Judges
Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Parenting Plan Variation, Custody and Access, Best Interests of Child, Costs in Family Law
Family and Children Parenting Plan Variation Custody and Access Best Interests of Child Costs in Family Law

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A J H

Applicant

A H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Application and Counter Application to Vary Parenting Plan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to the costs of Part A of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has made out a case for the variation of the existing parenting plan (Part B).

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant initiated urgent proceedings to change the residence of the minor children without first attempting mediation or amendment of the existing parenting plan. The reports from the Family Advocate and Irma Schutte recommended that both parents continue to exercise joint parental responsibilities, with residence remaining with the respondent. The applicant's complaint regarding denial of telephone contact was not persistent or serious enough to warrant a change in residence. The applicant failed to make out a case for the variation of the parenting plan, and the respondent was entitled to costs for Part A due to the applicant's conduct. The best interests of the children required...

Court Disposition

Application for variation of the parenting plan (Part B) dismissed with costs; applicant ordered to pay taxed costs of Part A.

Orders

  • The application for Part B of the order is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the taxed costs of Part A application on the party and party scale.