B v L (2011/34598) [2016] ZAGPJHC 232 (1 September 2016)

B v L (2011/34598) [2016] ZAGPJHC 232 (1 September 2016)

The court determined that the draft order and parenting plan submitted by the parties comply with the formal requirements of sections 33 and 34 of the Children’s Act and serve the best interests of the minor child. The parties reached consensus after protracted conflict, and the court found no basis for an adverse costs order, noting that such orders in family disputes may inflame ongoing conflict and are generally inappropriate. The application for defined visitation rights is granted in terms of the draft order and parenting plan, and no order as to costs is made.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 232
Parties
Applicant: V S B; Respondent: H L
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2016
Case Number
2011/34598
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Final Determination After Interlocutory Proceedings
Outcome
Application for defined visitation rights granted in terms of the draft order and parenting plan; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mosikatsana
Legal Topics
Parenting Plan, Child Visitation, Best Interests of Child, Costs in Family Disputes
Family and Children Parenting Plan Child Visitation Best Interests of Child Costs in Family Disputes

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

V S B

Applicant

H L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Final Determination After Interlocutory Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed draft order and parenting plan serve the best interests of the minor child.
  2. 2 Whether an adverse costs order should be made in the context of a high-conflict child visitation dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the draft order and parenting plan submitted by the parties comply with the formal requirements of sections 33 and 34 of the Children’s Act and serve the best interests of the minor child. The parties reached consensus after protracted conflict, and the court found no basis for an adverse costs order, noting that such orders in family disputes may inflame ongoing conflict and are generally inappropriate. The application for defined visitation rights is granted in terms of the draft order and parenting plan, and no order as to costs is made.

Court Disposition

Application for defined visitation rights granted in terms of the draft order and parenting plan; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • An order is granted in terms of the draft order and parenting plan marked 'X'.
  • There is no order as to costs.