J.G.M v I.H.M and Another (5334/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 356 (20 December 2022)

J.G.M v I.H.M and Another (5334/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 356 (20 December 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as there was an unexplained three-month delay between receipt of the psychologist's report and launching the application. The psychologist's report did not recommend immediate sleepover contact, but rather called for further investigation by the family advocate. The supplementary report submitted by the applicant was not substantiated by evidence that the minor child was interviewed or that her views were properly considered. The court held that the best interests of the child require a proper investigation before any change to contact arrangements is made. Accordingly, the applicant did not make out a proper case for the...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 356
Parties
Applicant: J.G.M; Respondent: I.H.M; Respondent: The Family Advocate, Bloemfontein
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2022
Case Number
5334/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Daniso
Legal Topics
Parental Contact, Best Interests of Child, Urgent Interim Relief, Psychological Evaluation
Family and Children Parental Contact Best Interests of Child Urgent Interim Relief Psychological Evaluation

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

Parties

J.G.M

Applicant

I.H.M

Respondent

The Family Advocate, Bloemfontein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established urgency justifying the hearing of the application on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim supervised sleepover contact with the minor child during the specified holiday period.
  3. 3 Whether the psychologist's report supports the relief sought by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as there was an unexplained three-month delay between receipt of the psychologist's report and launching the application. The psychologist's report did not recommend immediate sleepover contact, but rather called for further investigation by the family advocate. The supplementary report submitted by the applicant was not substantiated by evidence that the minor child was interviewed or that her views were properly considered. The court held that the best interests of the child require a proper investigation before any change to contact arrangements is made. Accordingly, the applicant did not make out a proper case for the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.