E.V.D.M v S.R.V.D.M (099818/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 378 (11 April 2025)

E.V.D.M v S.R.V.D.M (099818/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 378 (11 April 2025)

The court found that the clause in the contact agreement delegating binding decision-making power to the parenting coordinator was an unlawful and invalid delegation of judicial authority. Only courts may make binding rulings on parental rights and responsibilities; parenting coordinators may facilitate and mediate but cannot amend or determine such rights. The court ordered structured, phased-in contact arrangements for the respondent and the minor children, with the parenting coordinator appointed to implement and monitor these arrangements, but without authority to make binding changes to parental rights. Maintenance was apportioned pro rata to the parties’ incomes (63% respondent, 37%...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 378
Parties
Applicant: E.V.D.M; Respondent: S.R.V.D.M
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Case Number
099818/2023
Procedural Posture
Rule 43 Application / Interim Relief Pending Divorce
Outcome
Interim care, contact, and maintenance arrangements for the minor children ordered; appointment of parenting coordinator confirmed; applicant’s request for contribution to legal costs dismissed; costs to be costs in the pending divorce action.
Judges
Domingo
Legal Topics
Parenting Coordination, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Maintenance Pendente Lite, Contribution to Legal Costs, Children S Act, Interim Contact Arrangements
Family and Children Parenting Coordination Parental Responsibilities and Rights Maintenance Pendente Lite Contribution to Legal Costs Children S Act Interim Contact Arrangements

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 18
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E.V.D.M

Applicant

S.R.V.D.M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rule 43 Application / Interim Relief Pending Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delegation of judicial authority to a parenting coordinator in the contact agreement is lawful and valid.
  2. 2 What interim care, contact, and maintenance arrangements are appropriate for the minor children pending divorce.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a contribution towards her legal costs from the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the clause in the contact agreement delegating binding decision-making power to the parenting coordinator was an unlawful and invalid delegation of judicial authority. Only courts may make binding rulings on parental rights and responsibilities; parenting coordinators may facilitate and mediate but cannot amend or determine such rights. The court ordered structured, phased-in contact arrangements for the respondent and the minor children, with the parenting coordinator appointed to implement and monitor these arrangements, but without authority to make binding changes to parental rights. Maintenance was apportioned pro rata to the parties’ incomes (63% respondent, 37%...

Court Disposition

Interim care, contact, and maintenance arrangements for the minor children ordered; appointment of parenting coordinator confirmed; applicant’s request for contribution to legal costs dismissed; costs to be costs in the pending divorce action.

Orders

  • Both parties retain full parental responsibilities and rights regarding care and maintenance of the minor children as per section 18(2)(a) of the Children’s Act.
  • Both parties retain guardianship of the minor children in terms of section 18(2)(c) of the Children’s Act.