Celimene v Scholtz (11/10778) [2011] ZAGPJHC 170 (16 November 2011)

Celimene v Scholtz (11/10778) [2011] ZAGPJHC 170 (16 November 2011)

The court found that the applicant’s decision to relocate was bona fide, rational, and made in the best interests of the minor child N. The evidence showed that N is securely bonded to both parents, and the applicant has consistently facilitated contact between N and the respondent. The court considered the factors in section 7 of the Children’s Act, including the likely effect of relocation, the child’s relationships with both parents and extended family, and the practical arrangements for ongoing contact. The court rejected the Family Advocate’s recommendation as unconvincing and accepted the psychologist’s findings that both parents are fit and that the applicant’s relocation plan is...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 170
Parties
Applicant: Roberta Gillian Celimene; Respondent: Christopher Scholtz
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2011
Case Number
11/10778
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion and Counter Application
Outcome
Application granted. The applicant is authorised to relocate the minor child N to France. The respondent’s consent is not required for passport or travel purposes. Contact and maintenance arrangements are ordered.
Judges
Makume
Legal Topics
Children S Act, Relocation of Minor, Parental Consent, Best Interests of Child, Maintenance, Contact Rights
Family and Children Children S Act Relocation of Minor Parental Consent Best Interests of Child Maintenance Contact Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roberta Gillian Celimene

Applicant

Christopher Scholtz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted permission to relocate the minor child N from South Africa to France.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's consent is required for the removal of the child under section 18 of the Children’s Act.
  3. 3 What contact and maintenance arrangements are in the best interests of the child post-relocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant’s decision to relocate was bona fide, rational, and made in the best interests of the minor child N. The evidence showed that N is securely bonded to both parents, and the applicant has consistently facilitated contact between N and the respondent. The court considered the factors in section 7 of the Children’s Act, including the likely effect of relocation, the child’s relationships with both parents and extended family, and the practical arrangements for ongoing contact. The court rejected the Family Advocate’s recommendation as unconvincing and accepted the psychologist’s findings that both parents are fit and that the applicant’s relocation plan is...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The applicant is authorised to relocate the minor child N to France. The respondent’s consent is not required for passport or travel purposes. Contact and maintenance arrangements are ordered.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted the right to remove the minor child N and to depart with him from South Africa to France and within Europe on holidays.
  • The respondent’s consent is not required for the purposes of applying for or issuing a passport to the minor child N.