Higgs v Lombard (1004/07) [2008] ZAECHC 149 (22 August 2008)

Higgs v Lombard (1004/07) [2008] ZAECHC 149 (22 August 2008)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish grounds for a further psychological assessment of the children by Dr Swanepoel, as this relief was not properly raised in the initial application and was not in the children's best interests. The evidence demonstrated that the children were well-settled in their new environment and that monthly weekend visits to Pretoria would impose undue strain and disrupt their school and social activities. The respondent had acted reasonably in facilitating access, and the applicant's allegations of frustration were not supported by objective evidence. The court accepted the recommendations of the Family Advocate and school officials, granting...

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 149
Parties
Applicant: James Higgs; Respondent: Waldette Lombard
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 August 2008
Case Number
1004/07
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application to vary custody and access order partially granted; applicant's request for future psychological assessment and monthly weekend visits in Pretoria refused; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
Custody Variation, Access Rights, Best Interests of Child, Costs Award
Family and Children Custody Variation Access Rights Best Interests of Child Costs Award

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Higgs

Applicant

Waldette Lombard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has made out a case for the children to be re-assessed by Dr Swanepoel a year from the date of judgment.
  2. 2 What access arrangements serve the best interests of the children.
  3. 3 Which party should be liable for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish grounds for a further psychological assessment of the children by Dr Swanepoel, as this relief was not properly raised in the initial application and was not in the children's best interests. The evidence demonstrated that the children were well-settled in their new environment and that monthly weekend visits to Pretoria would impose undue strain and disrupt their school and social activities. The respondent had acted reasonably in facilitating access, and the applicant's allegations of frustration were not supported by objective evidence. The court accepted the recommendations of the Family Advocate and school officials, granting...

Court Disposition

Application to vary custody and access order partially granted; applicant's request for future psychological assessment and monthly weekend visits in Pretoria refused; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The order granted in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court in case number 13638/04 dated 11 May 2006 is varied to provide both parties with full parental rights and responsibilities as defined in section 18 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
  • The applicant shall have reasonable telephonic contact with the children, subject to monitoring as recommended by the psychologist.