Anspach v Opland (2015/28396) [2015] ZAGPJHC 200 (8 September 2015)

Anspach v Opland (2015/28396) [2015] ZAGPJHC 200 (8 September 2015)

The court found that the respondent's refusal to comply with the recommendations of the Case Manager, which had been made an order of court, constituted a clear breach of his legal obligations and was not in the best interests of the minor child. The respondent's arguments regarding the registration status of the playschool and alleged irrationality of the recommendations were unsubstantiated and raised only after the fact. The urgency of the matter was established by the ongoing violation of the child's right to education and the respondent's persistent non-compliance. The court held that the recommendations must be implemented until set aside by a competent court, and the respondent's...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 200
Parties
Applicant: Heidi Anspach; Respondent: Russell Martin Opland
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2015
Case Number
2015/28396
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.
Judges
A Makume
Legal Topics
Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Best Interests of Child, Urgent Interdict, Contempt of Court, Costs Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Rights and Responsibilities Best Interests of Child Urgent Interdict Contempt of Court Costs Order

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heidi Anspach

Applicant

Russell Martin Opland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to comply with the recommendations of the Case Manager regarding the minor child's schooling pending any court review.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's refusal to take the minor child to the recommended playschool and contribute to educational costs constitutes contempt of the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the matter is sufficiently urgent to warrant dispensing with the normal rules of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's refusal to comply with the recommendations of the Case Manager, which had been made an order of court, constituted a clear breach of his legal obligations and was not in the best interests of the minor child. The respondent's arguments regarding the registration status of the playschool and alleged irrationality of the recommendations were unsubstantiated and raised only after the fact. The urgency of the matter was established by the ongoing violation of the child's right to education and the respondent's persistent non-compliance. The court held that the recommendations must be implemented until set aside by a competent court, and the respondent's...

Court Disposition

Application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to ensure that the minor child attends Secret Garden Playschool on every weekday when in his care until the end of the school year, unless medically certified ill.
  • From January 2016, provided the child is offered a place, the respondent shall ensure attendance at Michael Mount Waldorf School on every weekday when in his care, unless medically certified ill.