H.H v L.M.A (3584/2018) [2018] ZAECGHC 135 (18 December 2018)

H.H v L.M.A (3584/2018) [2018] ZAECGHC 135 (18 December 2018)

The court found that the applicant's assertion of deliberate manipulation by the respondent was not strongly supported by the evidence. The respondent had involved the applicant in decisions regarding the children's schooling. The therapists' reports and the legal representative's input demonstrated that the children were capable of expressing independent and mature views about their best interests. The court held that the drastic relief sought by the applicant, namely enforced prolonged contact over the December holiday, would not be in the best interests of the children and could cause emotional harm. The counter-application, which proposed ongoing professional involvement and...

Citation
[2018] ZAECGHC 135
Parties
Applicant: H H; Respondent: L M A
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2018
Case Number
3584/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application and Counter Application
Outcome
The main application is dismissed with no order as to costs. The counter-application is granted in specified terms.
Judges
J M Roberson
Legal Topics
Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Best Interests of the Child, Contact and Access, Psychological Assessment, School Enrolment
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Rights and Responsibilities Best Interests of the Child Contact and Access Psychological Assessment School Enrolment

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H H

Applicant

L M A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's contact with his minor children should be immediately restored and the children spend the December holiday exclusively with him.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted unilaterally in decisions regarding the children's schooling and medical treatment.
  3. 3 Whether the children's expressed wishes not to have contact with the applicant should be given decisive weight.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's assertion of deliberate manipulation by the respondent was not strongly supported by the evidence. The respondent had involved the applicant in decisions regarding the children's schooling. The therapists' reports and the legal representative's input demonstrated that the children were capable of expressing independent and mature views about their best interests. The court held that the drastic relief sought by the applicant, namely enforced prolonged contact over the December holiday, would not be in the best interests of the children and could cause emotional harm. The counter-application, which proposed ongoing professional involvement and...

Court Disposition

The main application is dismissed with no order as to costs. The counter-application is granted in specified terms.

Orders

  • The main application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Advocate Nicola Molony is appointed as the legal representative for the minor children in these proceedings.