A.K v M.C.K and Another (2256/2008) [2009] ZAECPEHC 35 (30 July 2009)

A.K v M.C.K and Another (2256/2008) [2009] ZAECPEHC 35 (30 July 2009)

The court found that the evidence did not support the applicant's assertion that the first respondent was responsible for the children's refusal to have contact with him. Expert reports indicated that the children's attitude was primarily a result of the applicant's own conduct and the problematic relationship between the parents, not parental alienation orchestrated by the first respondent. The proposed regime of removing the children from their mother's care was found to be contrary to the Children's Act and the Constitution, and would likely harm the children's rights and well-being. The court held that referring the matter to oral evidence would serve no purpose, as the disputes were...

Citation
[2009] ZAECPEHC 35
Parties
Applicant: A K; Respondent: M C K; Respondent: Elizabeth Crouse N.O
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2009
Case Number
2256/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Referral to Oral Evidence Under Rule 6(5)(g)
Outcome
Application for referral to oral evidence under Rule 6(5)(g) dismissed; costs to be costs in the cause.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Parental Alienation, Custody and Access, Children S Act, Best Interests of Child, Oral Evidence, Costs in the Cause
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Alienation Custody and Access Children S Act Best Interests of Child Oral Evidence Costs in the Cause

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A K

Applicant

M C K

Respondent

Elizabeth Crouse N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Referral to Oral Evidence Under Rule 6(5)(g)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal by the minor children to have contact with the applicant is caused by parental alienation syndrome.
  2. 2 Whether parental alienation syndrome or its symptoms are a result of any conduct by the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be referred for oral evidence on these issues under Rule 6(5)(g).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not support the applicant's assertion that the first respondent was responsible for the children's refusal to have contact with him. Expert reports indicated that the children's attitude was primarily a result of the applicant's own conduct and the problematic relationship between the parents, not parental alienation orchestrated by the first respondent. The proposed regime of removing the children from their mother's care was found to be contrary to the Children's Act and the Constitution, and would likely harm the children's rights and well-being. The court held that referring the matter to oral evidence would serve no purpose, as the disputes were...

Court Disposition

Application for referral to oral evidence under Rule 6(5)(g) dismissed; costs to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The application in terms of Rule 6(5)(g) is dismissed.
  • Costs hereof are to be costs in the cause.