C.R.I v M.R.I (EL 1691/11, ECD 2228/11) [2012] ZAECELLC 13 (24 August 2012)

C.R.I v M.R.I (EL 1691/11, ECD 2228/11) [2012] ZAECELLC 13 (24 August 2012)

The court found that, although the children were articulate in their refusal to see their father, their views must be considered in the context of their prolonged exclusive custody with the applicant and lack of contact with the respondent. The court held that the respondent's acceptance of responsibility and willingness to repair the relationship justified granting supervised contact. The best interests of the children require re-establishing contact, even against their stated wishes, as the long-term psychological consequences of estrangement may be detrimental. Supervised contact under the guidance of psychologists was deemed safe and appropriate, with further contact to be determined...

Citation
[2012] ZAECELLC 13
Parties
Applicant: C.R.I (born Bergstedt); Respondent: M.R.I
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2012
Case Number
EL 1691/11, ECD 2228/11
Procedural Posture
Family Application / Final Order on Contact Rights
Outcome
Application for defined contact rights granted; supervised contact ordered.
Judges
J.E Smith
Legal Topics
Child Contact Rights, Best Interests of Child, Children's Act Section 10, Supervised Access, Parental Responsibility
Family and Children Child Contact Rights Best Interests of Child Children's Act Section 10 Supervised Access Parental Responsibility

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.R.I (born Bergstedt)

Applicant

M.R.I

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Application / Final Order on Contact Rights

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be allowed contact with his minor children despite their stated refusal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's opposition to contact is justified by the best interests of the children.
  3. 3 How the views of the minor children should be weighed under section 10 of the Children's Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the children were articulate in their refusal to see their father, their views must be considered in the context of their prolonged exclusive custody with the applicant and lack of contact with the respondent. The court held that the respondent's acceptance of responsibility and willingness to repair the relationship justified granting supervised contact. The best interests of the children require re-establishing contact, even against their stated wishes, as the long-term psychological consequences of estrangement may be detrimental. Supervised contact under the guidance of psychologists was deemed safe and appropriate, with further contact to be determined...

Court Disposition

Application for defined contact rights granted; supervised contact ordered.

Orders

  • The respondent will initially have contact with the minor children, subject to supervision by the psychologists Ms Lynda Graetz and Ms Janet Burnes.
  • Further contact will resume on the basis of recommendations by the psychologists.