CMK v BJK (18521/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 334 (28 October 2024)

CMK v BJK (18521/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 334 (28 October 2024)

The court found that the matter is urgent due to the vulnerability and best interests of the minor children, who are caught in a conflict between their parents and exhibiting signs of emotional distress and underperformance at school. The evidence from teachers and the principal indicated that both children are unsettled and disturbed, necessitating professional intervention. The respondent's objections were found to be inconsistent, as he initially consented to an assessment but later withdrew consent based on the choice of psychologist rather than the assessment itself. The court held that appointing an educational psychologist is essential to identify the root causes of the children's...

Citation
[2024] ZAWCHC 334
Parties
Applicant: CMK; Respondent: BJK
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2024
Case Number
18521/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Appointment of Educational Psychologist and Related Relief
Outcome
Application granted. The applicant is authorised to appoint an educational psychologist without the respondent's consent. The Office of the Family Advocate is directed to conduct a care and contact investigation and gather the children's views. Costs awarded against the respondent except for wasted costs of...
Judges
Lekhuleni
Legal Topics
Children S Act, Care and Contact, Best Interests of Child, Appointment of Expert, Urgent Interdict
Family and Children Children S Act Care and Contact Best Interests of Child Appointment of Expert Urgent Interdict

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CMK

Applicant

BJK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Appointment of Educational Psychologist and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a case for urgency as envisaged in Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules.
  2. 2 Whether an educational psychologist should be appointed to assess and recommend the most suitable school for the minor children for the 2025 academic year.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter is urgent due to the vulnerability and best interests of the minor children, who are caught in a conflict between their parents and exhibiting signs of emotional distress and underperformance at school. The evidence from teachers and the principal indicated that both children are unsettled and disturbed, necessitating professional intervention. The respondent's objections were found to be inconsistent, as he initially consented to an assessment but later withdrew consent based on the choice of psychologist rather than the assessment itself. The court held that appointing an educational psychologist is essential to identify the root causes of the children's...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The applicant is authorised to appoint an educational psychologist without the respondent's consent. The Office of the Family Advocate is directed to conduct a care and contact investigation and gather the children's views. Costs awarded against the respondent except for wasted costs of...

Orders

  • The respondent’s consent to an assessment by an educational psychologist Michele Berger or Gerda Grobler is dispensed with; the applicant is authorised to appoint either to conduct the assessment and make recommendations as to the optimal schools for the minor children from January 2025.
  • The Office of the Family Advocate is directed to conduct a care and contact investigation to determine what is in the best interest of the minor children.