B v B (3951/2013) [2015] ZAFSHC 74 (16 March 2015)

B v B (3951/2013) [2015] ZAFSHC 74 (16 March 2015)

The court found that the children had consistently expressed a preference to reside with the applicant over a period exceeding a year, as confirmed by multiple independent professionals. The respondent's denial of any issues and her refusal to participate in a full psychological evaluation were weighed against the applicant's evidence and the children's wishes. The court held that the best interests of the children required their wishes to be respected, at least on an interim basis, pending a comprehensive evaluation by an independent psychologist. The status quo was varied to grant the applicant primary residence and care pendente lite, with detailed contact rights for the respondent....

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 74
Parties
Applicant: M[...] P[...] B[...]; Respondent: S[...] J[...] B[...]
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2015
Case Number
3951/2013
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application postponed for further evaluation; interim variation of custody granted to applicant; costs to be borne individually by each party.
Judges
Daffue R
Legal Topics
Variation of Custody Order, Best Interests of Child, Children S Act, Parental Responsibilities and Rights
Family and Children Variation of Custody Order Best Interests of Child Children S Act Parental Responsibilities and Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[...] P[...] B[...]

Applicant

S[...] J[...] B[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the permanent residence and primary care of the minor children should be varied from the respondent to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the wishes of the children regarding their residence should be given effect.
  3. 3 Whether further psychological evaluation is necessary before a final custody determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the children had consistently expressed a preference to reside with the applicant over a period exceeding a year, as confirmed by multiple independent professionals. The respondent's denial of any issues and her refusal to participate in a full psychological evaluation were weighed against the applicant's evidence and the children's wishes. The court held that the best interests of the children required their wishes to be respected, at least on an interim basis, pending a comprehensive evaluation by an independent psychologist. The status quo was varied to grant the applicant primary residence and care pendente lite, with detailed contact rights for the respondent....

Court Disposition

Application postponed for further evaluation; interim variation of custody granted to applicant; costs to be borne individually by each party.

Orders

  • The application is postponed to Thursday, 6 August 2015.
  • Pendente lite, the permanent residence and day-to-day care of the children is granted to the applicant, effective from the last school day of the current term (25 March 2015).