D v P (82527/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1078 (15 December 2016)

D v P (82527/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1078 (15 December 2016)

The court found that the respondent's decision to relocate the minor child to Durban was taken without proper consultation with the applicant, contrary to the peremptory requirements of section 31(2) of the Children's Act. The evidence showed that the relocation primarily served the respondent's interests and did not adequately consider the minor child's best interests, including her need for stability, ongoing therapy, and established relationships. The expert reports indicated that the minor child was confused and vulnerable due to the acrimonious relationship between the parents, and that further disruption would not be beneficial. The court held that the best interests of the child...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1078
Parties
Applicant: I. D.; Respondent: S. P.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
82527/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Relocation and Contact Rights
Outcome
Application to permit relocation of the minor child to Durban refused; urgent relief granted to preserve status quo and facilitate further mediation and therapy.
Judges
C J van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Child, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Best Interests of Child, Parenting Plan, Contact Rights, Children's Act Application
Family and Children Relocation of Minor Child Parental Responsibilities and Rights Best Interests of Child Parenting Plan Contact Rights Children's Act Application

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

I. D.

Applicant

S. P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Relocation and Contact Rights

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent may relocate the minor child to Durban pending expert assessment and recommendations.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's decision to relocate was bona fide and reasonable, and in compliance with section 31(2) of the Children's Act.
  3. 3 What arrangements best serve the minor child's best interests regarding care, contact, therapy, and schooling.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's decision to relocate the minor child to Durban was taken without proper consultation with the applicant, contrary to the peremptory requirements of section 31(2) of the Children's Act. The evidence showed that the relocation primarily served the respondent's interests and did not adequately consider the minor child's best interests, including her need for stability, ongoing therapy, and established relationships. The expert reports indicated that the minor child was confused and vulnerable due to the acrimonious relationship between the parents, and that further disruption would not be beneficial. The court held that the best interests of the child...

Court Disposition

Application to permit relocation of the minor child to Durban refused; urgent relief granted to preserve status quo and facilitate further mediation and therapy.

Orders

  • The matter is enrolled as one of urgency.
  • The respondent is ordered not to remove the minor child from the court's jurisdiction to relocate to Durban.