C.K v J.J.S (2023/058030) [2024] ZAGPJHC 292 (22 March 2024)

C.K v J.J.S (2023/058030) [2024] ZAGPJHC 292 (22 March 2024)

The court found that the proposed relocation would not be in the minor child's best interests. The evidence, including reports from the clinical psychologist and the Family Advocate, demonstrated that the child experienced significant stress and anxiety regarding the move and clearly expressed his desire to remain in Johannesburg. The child is equally bonded to both parents and is well-settled in his school and social environment. Forced relocation would disrupt these relationships and negatively impact his well-being and relationship with the respondent. The applicant's constitutional rights to freedom of movement and professional aspirations, while important, do not outweigh the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 292
Parties
Applicant: C[...] K[...]; Respondent: J[...] J[...] S[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Case Number
2023/058030
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application for relocation denied.
Judges
Lange
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Best Interests of Child, Children S Act, Parental Rights, Psychological Evidence
Family and Children Child Relocation Best Interests of Child Children S Act Parental Rights Psychological Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C[...] K[...]

Applicant

J[...] J[...] S[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed relocation of the minor child to Ballito is in his best interests.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's constitutional rights to freedom of movement and professional aspirations outweigh the potential harm to the child.
  3. 3 Whether the child's expressed wishes and emotional state should be determinative in the relocation decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proposed relocation would not be in the minor child's best interests. The evidence, including reports from the clinical psychologist and the Family Advocate, demonstrated that the child experienced significant stress and anxiety regarding the move and clearly expressed his desire to remain in Johannesburg. The child is equally bonded to both parents and is well-settled in his school and social environment. Forced relocation would disrupt these relationships and negatively impact his well-being and relationship with the respondent. The applicant's constitutional rights to freedom of movement and professional aspirations, while important, do not outweigh the...

Court Disposition

Application for relocation denied.

Orders

  • The Rules pertaining to notice and service are dispensed with and the application is heard as one of urgency in accordance with Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  • The application is denied.