C v D (11120/2002) [2014] ZAGPJHC 286 (10 June 2014)

C v D (11120/2002) [2014] ZAGPJHC 286 (10 June 2014)

The court found that the applicant has consistently attempted to establish contact with his minor daughter, but has been thwarted by the respondent's persistent non-cooperation and disregard for previous court orders. Expert reports, though somewhat outdated, consistently recommended supervised, phased contact and bonding therapy, and there was no credible evidence that the applicant posed a risk to the child. The respondent's conduct amounted to parental alienation, and the child's entrenched fear was found to be a product of the respondent's influence. The court held that the best interests of the child require an attempt to establish meaningful contact with the applicant, and that the...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 286
Parties
Applicant: A R A C; Respondent: A G D T
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Case Number
11120/2002
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Phased supervised contact between applicant and minor child ordered. Costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
Swartz
Legal Topics
Parental Contact, Parental Alienation, Best Interests of Child, Supervised Access, Children S Act, Costs Order
Family and Children Parental Contact Parental Alienation Best Interests of Child Supervised Access Children S Act 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A R A C

Applicant

A G D T

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted contact with the minor child despite the respondent's opposition.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct constitutes parental alienation and unjustified frustration of the applicant's rights.
  3. 3 Whether the outdated expert reports are sufficient to determine the best interests of the child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant has consistently attempted to establish contact with his minor daughter, but has been thwarted by the respondent's persistent non-cooperation and disregard for previous court orders. Expert reports, though somewhat outdated, consistently recommended supervised, phased contact and bonding therapy, and there was no credible evidence that the applicant posed a risk to the child. The respondent's conduct amounted to parental alienation, and the child's entrenched fear was found to be a product of the respondent's influence. The court held that the best interests of the child require an attempt to establish meaningful contact with the applicant, and that the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Phased supervised contact between applicant and minor child ordered. Costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The applicant is entitled to meet the minor child for 2 hours per month at a restaurant or at the residence of G C for 6 months from the date of this order.
  • Reasonable telephonic contact is permitted during this period.