C.F.B v D.A.B (21601/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 598 (21 July 2023)

C.F.B v D.A.B (21601/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 598 (21 July 2023)

The court found that granting the applicant sleepover contact for at least 50% of the time he is in South Africa would create uncertainty and undermine the child's need for predictability and stability. The status quo should be maintained, with adaptations to accommodate the applicant's travel schedule. The applicant is entitled to midweek sleepover contact upon arrival and the first following weekend as his contact weekend, but not more than two consecutive weekends unless agreed by the parties. Public holidays outside school holidays are to alternate between the parties if justified by the applicant's stay. The respondent's request for the child to return with sufficient time before...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 598
Parties
Applicant: C[...] F[...] B[...]; Respondent: D[...] A[...] B[...]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2023
Case Number
21601/2020
Procedural Posture
Rule 43 Application / Interim Contact and Residency Determination Pending Divorce
Outcome
The application for increased sleepover contact is refused; the status quo is maintained with adaptations for the applicant's travel schedule. Each party is to bear its own costs. The respondent's striking-out application is refused.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Interim Contact, Parental Relocation, Best Interests of Child, Rule 43 Procedure
Family and Children Interim Contact Parental Relocation Best Interests of Child Rule 43 Procedure

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C[...] F[...] B[...]

Applicant

D[...] A[...] B[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rule 43 Application / Interim Contact and Residency Determination Pending Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted sleepover contact with the minor child for at least 50% of the time he is in South Africa during the school term.
  2. 2 Whether the status quo regarding contact should be maintained or adapted to the applicant's travel schedule.
  3. 3 How holiday and public holiday contact should be structured in light of the applicant's relocation and travel patterns.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that granting the applicant sleepover contact for at least 50% of the time he is in South Africa would create uncertainty and undermine the child's need for predictability and stability. The status quo should be maintained, with adaptations to accommodate the applicant's travel schedule. The applicant is entitled to midweek sleepover contact upon arrival and the first following weekend as his contact weekend, but not more than two consecutive weekends unless agreed by the parties. Public holidays outside school holidays are to alternate between the parties if justified by the applicant's stay. The respondent's request for the child to return with sufficient time before...

Court Disposition

The application for increased sleepover contact is refused; the status quo is maintained with adaptations for the applicant's travel schedule. Each party is to bear its own costs. The respondent's striking-out application is refused.

Orders

  • The order marked 'X' dated and signed by the judge is made an order of court.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.