H.S.E v H.A.E (3350/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 45 (26 February 2025)

H.S.E v H.A.E (3350/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 45 (26 February 2025)

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that a change in primary residence and care would be in the best interests of the minor children. The psychologist's report relied upon was outdated and did not address the children's views, which are statutorily required. The family advocate's report, which included the children's perspectives and a thorough assessment, found no evidence of parental alienation and recommended that residence remain with the respondent. The applicant's allegations were not supported by credible evidence, and his persistent litigation was found to be frivolous and not in the children's best interests. The application was...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 45
Parties
Applicant: H[...] S[...] E[...]; Respondent: H[...] A[...] E[...]
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Case Number
3350/2022
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale, including costs of counsel.
Judges
Daniso
Legal Topics
Variation of Custody Order, Best Interests of Child, Parental Alienation, Maintenance Enforcement, Children S Act, Costs Punitive Scale
Family and Children Variation of Custody Order Best Interests of Child Parental Alienation Maintenance Enforcement Children S Act Costs Punitive Scale

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H[...] S[...] E[...]

Applicant

H[...] A[...] E[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for varying the primary residence and care order of the minor children.
  2. 2 Whether allegations of parental alienation by the respondent are substantiated.
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the minor children require a change in primary residence.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that a change in primary residence and care would be in the best interests of the minor children. The psychologist's report relied upon was outdated and did not address the children's views, which are statutorily required. The family advocate's report, which included the children's perspectives and a thorough assessment, found no evidence of parental alienation and recommended that residence remain with the respondent. The applicant's allegations were not supported by credible evidence, and his persistent litigation was found to be frivolous and not in the children's best interests. The application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale, including costs of counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs on attorney and client scale including the costs of counsel.