H S v J S (1025/2016) [2019] ZAFSHC 2 (7 March 2019)

H S v J S (1025/2016) [2019] ZAFSHC 2 (7 March 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances that would justify varying the deed of settlement. The shared residence arrangement had been in place for over three years, and the children had become accustomed to it and coped well. The Family Advocate and other professionals recommended continuation of the shared arrangement, and the practicalities of school attendance did not present significant difficulties. The court concluded that altering the status quo was not in the best interests of the children and dismissed the application for variation.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 2
Parties
Applicant: H S; Respondent: J S
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2019
Case Number
1025/2016
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Daffue
Legal Topics
Variation of Settlement Agreement, Primary Care of Children, Best Interests of Child, Shared Residence, Parental Conflict
Family and Children Variation of Settlement Agreement Primary Care of Children Best Interests of Child Shared Residence Parental Conflict

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H S

Applicant

J S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of settlement regarding shared primary care of the minor children should be varied to grant the applicant primary care.
  2. 2 Whether the current shared residence arrangement serves the best interests of the minor children.
  3. 3 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances justifying a variation of the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances that would justify varying the deed of settlement. The shared residence arrangement had been in place for over three years, and the children had become accustomed to it and coped well. The Family Advocate and other professionals recommended continuation of the shared arrangement, and the practicalities of school attendance did not present significant difficulties. The court concluded that altering the status quo was not in the best interests of the children and dismissed the application for variation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall be liable for the payment of his/her costs of the application.