B v B (Naidoo ADJP, Reinders J, Mathebula J) [2019] ZAFSHC 77 (11 June 2019)

B v B (Naidoo ADJP, Reinders J, Mathebula J) [2019] ZAFSHC 77 (11 June 2019)

The court found that neither the appellant nor the respondent made out a case for amending the deed of settlement regarding the care and residence of the minor children. The evidence showed that the children had been living in a stable and nurturing environment with the respondent and maternal grandparents, and there was no indication that their best interests were compromised. The supplementary affidavit did not present new facts warranting a re-investigation by the Family Advocate. The respondent's temporary absence for studies did not amount to abandonment, and her actions were in line with her parental rights. The trial court's reliance on the Family Advocate's recommendations was...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 77
Parties
Appellant: R[….] B[….]; Respondent: M[….] B[….]
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2019
Case Number
3567/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Both the main application and counter-application are dismissed. Each party to pay his/her own costs.
Judges
Reinders, Naidoo, Mathebula
Legal Topics
Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Primary Care and Residence, Best Interests of Child, Children S Act, Maintenance, Non Joinder
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Rights and Responsibilities Primary Care and Residence Best Interests of Child Children S Act Maintenance Non Joinder

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R[….] B[….]

Appellant

M[….] B[….]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary care and residence of the minor children should be awarded to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the deed of settlement should be amended to alter parental rights and maintenance obligations.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's counter-application for temporary residence with maternal grandparents should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither the appellant nor the respondent made out a case for amending the deed of settlement regarding the care and residence of the minor children. The evidence showed that the children had been living in a stable and nurturing environment with the respondent and maternal grandparents, and there was no indication that their best interests were compromised. The supplementary affidavit did not present new facts warranting a re-investigation by the Family Advocate. The respondent's temporary absence for studies did not amount to abandonment, and her actions were in line with her parental rights. The trial court's reliance on the Family Advocate's recommendations was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Both the main application and counter-application are dismissed. Each party to pay his/her own costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The main application is dismissed.