G v G (32377/12) [2015] ZAGPJHC 34 (29 January 2015)

G v G (32377/12) [2015] ZAGPJHC 34 (29 January 2015)

The court found that the application was urgent due to the timing of school enrollment and the uncertainty created by the respondent's late opposition to the relocation. However, after considering the Family Advocate's report and the evidence, the court held that relocating the minor children to Cape Town would not be in their best interests. The report indicated that the children were settled in Johannesburg, had a stable routine, and enjoyed a good relationship with their father. Disrupting this stability would be detrimental. The applicant's reasons for relocation were primarily personal and did not outweigh the children's need for continuity and stability. The court also rejected the...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 34
Parties
Applicant: C L G; Respondent: N J G
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2015
Case Number
32377/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Mashile
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Children, Best Interests of Child, Variation of Custody Order, Children's Act, Rule 43 Applications
Family and Children Relocation of Minor Children Best Interests of Child Variation of Custody Order Children's Act Rule 43 Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C L G

Applicant

N J G

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be permitted to relocate to Cape Town with the minor children.
  2. 2 Whether the relocation is in the best interests of the minor children.
  3. 3 Whether the application is urgent and properly brought before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was urgent due to the timing of school enrollment and the uncertainty created by the respondent's late opposition to the relocation. However, after considering the Family Advocate's report and the evidence, the court held that relocating the minor children to Cape Town would not be in their best interests. The report indicated that the children were settled in Johannesburg, had a stable routine, and enjoyed a good relationship with their father. Disrupting this stability would be detrimental. The applicant's reasons for relocation were primarily personal and did not outweigh the children's need for continuity and stability. The court also rejected the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs as between attorney and client.