J.B v R.E (9202 / 2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 3 (17 January 2023)

J.B v R.E (9202 / 2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 3 (17 January 2023)

The court found that the applicant’s relocation plans were bona fide, well-resourced, and in the minor child’s best interests. Both appointed experts independently and jointly recommended relocation, noting the applicant’s financial stability and her role as primary caregiver. The respondent’s objections were largely technical and unsupported by evidence. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the child’s relationship with both parents, but concluded that the advantages of relocation outweighed the disadvantages. The applicant’s proposals for care, contact, and parenting coordination were comprehensive and addressed all practicalities. The respondent’s consent for relocation...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 3
Parties
Applicant: J.B; Respondent: R.E
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Case Number
9202 / 2022
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Opposed Motion for Relocation Order; Reasons Delivered After Order Granted
Outcome
Application granted; applicant permitted to relocate with the minor child to Lyon, France. Respondent’s consent for relocation and travel documents dispensed with. Detailed orders made regarding care, contact, maintenance, and enforcement.
Judges
Wille
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Child, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Children S Act, Best Interests of Child, International Child Abduction, Parenting Coordination
Family and Children Relocation of Minor Child Parental Responsibilities and Rights Children S Act Best Interests of Child International Child Abduction Parenting Coordination

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

Parties

J.B

Applicant

R.E

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Opposed Motion for Relocation Order; Reasons Delivered After Order Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be permitted to permanently relocate with the minor child to France.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's consent to the relocation and travel documents may be dispensed with under the Children’s Act.
  3. 3 What care and contact arrangements are in the minor child's best interests post-relocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant’s relocation plans were bona fide, well-resourced, and in the minor child’s best interests. Both appointed experts independently and jointly recommended relocation, noting the applicant’s financial stability and her role as primary caregiver. The respondent’s objections were largely technical and unsupported by evidence. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the child’s relationship with both parents, but concluded that the advantages of relocation outweighed the disadvantages. The applicant’s proposals for care, contact, and parenting coordination were comprehensive and addressed all practicalities. The respondent’s consent for relocation...

Court Disposition

Application granted; applicant permitted to relocate with the minor child to Lyon, France. Respondent’s consent for relocation and travel documents dispensed with. Detailed orders made regarding care, contact, maintenance, and enforcement.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to remove the minor child X permanently from South Africa and relocate to Lyon, France, on or about 25 January 2023 or once requisite visas are secured.
  • The respondent’s consent for removal and travel documents is dispensed with under section 18(3)(c)(iii) and 18(5) of the Children’s Act.