K v K (17189/08) [2009] ZAGPJHC 13 (6 May 2009)

K v K (17189/08) [2009] ZAGPJHC 13 (6 May 2009)

The applicant failed to provide sufficient detail to justify that emigration to Israel was in the child's best interests. The evidence did not establish that the educational, social, or safety advantages claimed would outweigh the disruption to the child's established life and relationship with her mother. The applicant's conduct in restricting the respondent's access was found to be unreasonable and unjustified, causing harm to the child. The court declined to vary the custody order in favour of the respondent, as immediate restoration of the relationship was required before such a step could be considered. Instead, the court amended the access arrangements to facilitate reconstructive...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPJHC 13
Parties
Applicant: M K; Respondent: R K
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2009
Case Number
17189/08
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; custody order amended to specify respondent's access rights and require reconstructive therapy.
Judges
Roos
Legal Topics
Custody Variation, Child Relocation, Best Interests of Child, Parental Access, Reconstructive Therapy
Family and Children Custody Variation Child Relocation Best Interests of Child Parental Access Reconstructive Therapy

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M K

Applicant

R K

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to remove the minor child from South Africa without the respondent's consent.
  2. 2 Whether the custody order should be varied to award custody to the respondent or specify her rights of access.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct in depriving the respondent of access to the child was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient detail to justify that emigration to Israel was in the child's best interests. The evidence did not establish that the educational, social, or safety advantages claimed would outweigh the disruption to the child's established life and relationship with her mother. The applicant's conduct in restricting the respondent's access was found to be unreasonable and unjustified, causing harm to the child. The court declined to vary the custody order in favour of the respondent, as immediate restoration of the relationship was required before such a step could be considered. Instead, the court amended the access arrangements to facilitate reconstructive...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; custody order amended to specify respondent's access rights and require reconstructive therapy.

Orders

  • The application for leave to remove the minor child from South Africa is dismissed.
  • The custody order dated 5 June 2006 is amended by deleting paragraph 3 and substituting a detailed access and therapy regime as set out in the judgment.