Campher v Cushing (978/2009) [2009] ZAECPEHC 11 (21 April 2009)

Campher v Cushing (978/2009) [2009] ZAECPEHC 11 (21 April 2009)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that it would be in the best interests of the minor child to travel to London with her for medical treatment. The evidence presented was insufficient to dispel the uncertainty regarding the duration and nature of the treatment, the child's care arrangements, and the impact on the child's emotional and psychological well-being. The court noted that both options—traveling with the applicant or remaining with the respondent—would disrupt the child's life, but the arrangements in London were uncertain and involved care by persons unfamiliar to the child. The allegations of sexual abuse were disputed and not established on the papers. The...

Citation
[2009] ZAECPEHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Rosemary Assunta Campher; Respondent: Richard David Cushing
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2009
Case Number
978/2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Dispensation of Parental Consent for Minor Child's International Travel
Outcome
Application dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
N Dambuza
Legal Topics
Parental Consent, Best Interests of Child, Temporary Relocation, Children Act, Custody and Access
Family and Children Parental Consent Best Interests of Child Temporary Relocation Children Act Custody and Access

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosemary Assunta Campher

Applicant

Richard David Cushing

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Dispensation of Parental Consent for Minor Child's International Travel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the minor child to travel with the applicant to London for the applicant's medical treatment.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's consent for the minor child's travel should be dispensed with under section 18 of the Children's Act.
  3. 3 Whether the arrangements made for the minor child's care in London are sufficient and in his best interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that it would be in the best interests of the minor child to travel to London with her for medical treatment. The evidence presented was insufficient to dispel the uncertainty regarding the duration and nature of the treatment, the child's care arrangements, and the impact on the child's emotional and psychological well-being. The court noted that both options—traveling with the applicant or remaining with the respondent—would disrupt the child's life, but the arrangements in London were uncertain and involved care by persons unfamiliar to the child. The allegations of sexual abuse were disputed and not established on the papers. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is ordered to pay his or her own costs.