B.S.K v A.R (A80/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 361 (29 December 2022)

B.S.K v A.R (A80/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 361 (29 December 2022)

The court found no evidence of parental alienation necessitating further psychological assessment of IGK, as she had already been evaluated twice by the Family Advocate and an independent social worker. The respondent is the primary caregiver, and all professional reports recommended that IGK reside with her. The respondent's decision to relocate was bona fide, motivated by employment, safety, and family support in Ireland. The court held that the best interests of IGK would be served by relocating with her mother, provided that the appellant's contact rights are protected through detailed arrangements for physical and electronic contact, including annual visits to South Africa and daily...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 361
Parties
Appellant: BSK; Respondent: AR
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 December 2022
Case Number
A80/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Relocation Order and Dismissal of Counter Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with a new order authorising relocation and detailed contact arrangements.
Judges
N.M. MBHELE, C.J MUSI, C. REINDERS
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Child, Parental Alienation, Custody and Contact, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Relocation of Minor Child Parental Alienation Custody and Contact Best Interests of Child

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BSK

Appellant

AR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Relocation Order and Dismissal of Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relocation of the minor child IGK to Ireland with the respondent is in the best interests of the child.
  2. 2 Whether allegations of parental alienation against the respondent warrant further psychological assessment of IGK.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's contact rights are adequately protected post-relocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no evidence of parental alienation necessitating further psychological assessment of IGK, as she had already been evaluated twice by the Family Advocate and an independent social worker. The respondent is the primary caregiver, and all professional reports recommended that IGK reside with her. The respondent's decision to relocate was bona fide, motivated by employment, safety, and family support in Ireland. The court held that the best interests of IGK would be served by relocating with her mother, provided that the appellant's contact rights are protected through detailed arrangements for physical and electronic contact, including annual visits to South Africa and daily...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with a new order authorising relocation and detailed contact arrangements.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with a new order.