H G v C G (1408/2009) [2009] ZAECPEHC 48; 2010 (3) SA 352 (ECP) (10 September 2009)

H G v C G (1408/2009) [2009] ZAECPEHC 48; 2010 (3) SA 352 (ECP) (10 September 2009)

The court found that the applicant’s experts failed to properly consider and accord due weight to the children’s views regarding relocation. The children, all of sufficient age and maturity, consistently expressed their desire to remain in Port Elizabeth and maintain the current joint custody arrangement. The Children’s Act requires the court to hear the voice of the child and prioritise their best interests. The applicant’s financial circumstances and proposed improved material conditions in Dubai were considered but found insufficient to override the children’s emotional needs and their strong bond with the respondent. The expert recommendations supporting relocation were undermined by...

Citation
[2009] ZAECPEHC 48
Parties
Applicant: H M van C D G; Respondent: C E van C D G
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2009
Case Number
1408/2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Variation of Parenting Plan and Relocation of Minor Children
Outcome
Application dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Parenting Plan Variation, Relocation of Minor Children, Best Interests of Child, Child Participation, Children S Act, Custody and Access
Family and Children Parenting Plan Variation Relocation of Minor Children Best Interests of Child Child Participation Children S Act Custody and Access

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H M van C D G

Applicant

C E van C D G

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Variation of Parenting Plan and Relocation of Minor Children

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be declared the primary carer of the minor children.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be granted authority to relocate the children to Dubai.
  3. 3 Whether the views of the children regarding relocation and custody should be given due consideration under the Children’s Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant’s experts failed to properly consider and accord due weight to the children’s views regarding relocation. The children, all of sufficient age and maturity, consistently expressed their desire to remain in Port Elizabeth and maintain the current joint custody arrangement. The Children’s Act requires the court to hear the voice of the child and prioritise their best interests. The applicant’s financial circumstances and proposed improved material conditions in Dubai were considered but found insufficient to override the children’s emotional needs and their strong bond with the respondent. The expert recommendations supporting relocation were undermined by...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is liable to pay his/her own costs.