DM v CHP (B6773/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 76 (4 January 2024)

DM v CHP (B6773/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 76 (4 January 2024)

The respondent’s unilateral decision to relocate the child and restrict the applicant’s contact rights constitutes a breach of both the parties’ agreement and section 31(2) of the Children’s Act, which requires consultation and consideration of the co-holder’s views before making decisions that significantly affect parental rights. The evidence does not support the respondent’s claim of having relocated, and the applicant presented objective proof that the child’s life remains centred in Pretoria. The urgency of the matter is established by the immediate and adverse impact on the child’s relationship with her father. The best interests of the child require stability and continued access...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 76
Parties
Applicant: DM; Respondent: CHP
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 January 2024
Case Number
B6773/23
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Family Advocate Investigation
Outcome
Interim relief granted; status quo ante regarding contact restored pending Family Advocate investigation; respondent ordered to return child to court’s jurisdiction; costs reserved.
Judges
de Vos
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Child Contact, Relocation of Minor, Best Interests of Child, Children S Act, Status Quo Ante
Family and Children Parental Responsibilities and Rights Child Contact Relocation of Minor Best Interests of Child Children S Act Status Quo Ante

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DM

Applicant

CHP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Family Advocate Investigation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent may unilaterally alter the agreed contact regime and relocate the child, thereby restricting the applicant's parental rights.
  2. 2 Whether the status quo ante regarding contact should be restored pending investigation by the Family Advocate.
  3. 3 Whether the matter is urgent and warrants interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent’s unilateral decision to relocate the child and restrict the applicant’s contact rights constitutes a breach of both the parties’ agreement and section 31(2) of the Children’s Act, which requires consultation and consideration of the co-holder’s views before making decisions that significantly affect parental rights. The evidence does not support the respondent’s claim of having relocated, and the applicant presented objective proof that the child’s life remains centred in Pretoria. The urgency of the matter is established by the immediate and adverse impact on the child’s relationship with her father. The best interests of the child require stability and continued access...

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted; status quo ante regarding contact restored pending Family Advocate investigation; respondent ordered to return child to court’s jurisdiction; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The parties retain full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the minor child as provided in sections 19(1) and 21(1) of the Children’s Act.
  • The Family Advocate is requested to conduct an investigation into the child’s best interests and provide a report and recommendation to the court as soon as practicable.