C.B.V.T v D.F.V.T (75445/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 48 (5 February 2016)

C.B.V.T v D.F.V.T (75445/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 48 (5 February 2016)

The court found that the applicant's unilateral restriction of the respondent's contact rights was not justified by any substantive evidence. Reports from the educational psychologist and the family advocate indicated that the children desired continued contact with their father and that no valid grounds existed for limiting such contact. The applicant's actions were motivated by personal animosity towards the respondent's partner, which negatively affected the children. The court held that the best interests of the children required the restoration and extension of the respondent's contact rights. Furthermore, the applicant's conduct warranted a departure from the usual costs order, and...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 48
Parties
Applicant: C B V T; Respondent: D F V T
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2016
Case Number
75445/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Variation of Contact Rights Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; respondent's contact rights restored and extended; applicant ordered to pay costs.
Judges
N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Variation of Contact Rights, Best Interests of Child, Parental Responsibilities, Costs Order, Settlement Agreement
Family and Children Variation of Contact Rights Best Interests of Child Parental Responsibilities Costs Order Settlement Agreement

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C B V T

Applicant

D F V T

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Variation of Contact Rights Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's unilateral restriction of the respondent's contact rights to the minor children is justified.
  2. 2 Whether the existing court order regarding contact should be amended in the best interests of the children.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's unilateral restriction of the respondent's contact rights was not justified by any substantive evidence. Reports from the educational psychologist and the family advocate indicated that the children desired continued contact with their father and that no valid grounds existed for limiting such contact. The applicant's actions were motivated by personal animosity towards the respondent's partner, which negatively affected the children. The court held that the best interests of the children required the restoration and extension of the respondent's contact rights. Furthermore, the applicant's conduct warranted a departure from the usual costs order, and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; respondent's contact rights restored and extended; applicant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The court order dated 10 December 2013 under case number 65545/2013 is amended to include the applicant's right of contact with the minor children on Wednesdays between 18h00 and 19h00.
  • Telephone contact between the applicant and the minor children is limited to two calls per week as per paragraph 3.2.5 of the settlement agreement marked 'XX1'.