J.O v J.O and Another (15759/2015) [2022] ZAGPPHC 939 (28 November 2022)

J.O v J.O and Another (15759/2015) [2022] ZAGPPHC 939 (28 November 2022)

The court found that the second respondent had used methamphetamine within the relevant period, as confirmed by hair follicle testing, and rejected his explanation of a false positive. Given the evidence of substance abuse and previous inappropriate conduct, the court determined that the best interests of the minor child required that all contact between the second respondent and the child be strictly supervised. The court suspended specific paragraphs of the previous order that allowed for unsupervised or extended contact, appointed a legal representative and social worker for the child, and ordered that the second respondent bear the costs of these interventions. The court declined to...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 939
Parties
Applicant: J[....] O[....]; Respondent: J[....] O[....]; Respondent: Stefanus (Steven) Foukaridis
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2022
Case Number
15759/2015
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Final Determination After Interim Orders
Outcome
The application is granted. The second respondent’s contact with the minor child is restricted to supervised contact pending further investigation. Specific paragraphs of the previous order are suspended. No order as to costs.
Judges
HF Jacobs
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Supervised Contact, Substance Abuse, Children S Act, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Parental Responsibilities and Rights Supervised Contact Substance Abuse Children S Act Best Interests of Child

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J[....] O[....]

Applicant

J[....] O[....]

Respondent

Stefanus (Steven) Foukaridis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Final Determination After Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent should have supervised contact with the minor child due to substance abuse.
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 8.3, 9.2, 9.5 and 9.7 of the previous order should be suspended.
  3. 3 Whether a legal representative and social worker should be appointed for the minor child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent had used methamphetamine within the relevant period, as confirmed by hair follicle testing, and rejected his explanation of a false positive. Given the evidence of substance abuse and previous inappropriate conduct, the court determined that the best interests of the minor child required that all contact between the second respondent and the child be strictly supervised. The court suspended specific paragraphs of the previous order that allowed for unsupervised or extended contact, appointed a legal representative and social worker for the child, and ordered that the second respondent bear the costs of these interventions. The court declined to...

Court Disposition

The application is granted. The second respondent’s contact with the minor child is restricted to supervised contact pending further investigation. Specific paragraphs of the previous order are suspended. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 8.3, 9.2, 9.5 and 9.7 of the order dated 9 February 2021 are suspended.
  • A legal representative is appointed for the minor child in terms of section 55 of the Children’s Act.