K.M v J.W (95071/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 610 (26 January 2018)

K.M v J.W (95071/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 610 (26 January 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient and credible details regarding the arrangements for the minor child in the DRC, including accommodation, schooling, medical facilities, and safety. The applicant had not demonstrated that her relocation was bona fide or in the child's best interests. The minor child had formed a strong bond with the respondent during the applicant's absence, and the current environment was stable and suitable. The Family Advocate's report did not adequately address the practical implications of relocation, and the child's wishes could not be reliably ascertained due to his age. The court concluded that the applicant had not made out a proper...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 610
Parties
Applicant: K M; Respondent: J W
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2018
Case Number
95071/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application to dispense with consent for relocation refused; temporary primary care and residency of the minor child awarded to the respondent while the applicant is in the DRC; reasonable contact rights granted to the applicant.
Judges
Mosopa
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Child, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Best Interests of Child, Children's Act, Custody and Access
Family and Children Relocation of Minor Child Parental Responsibilities and Rights Best Interests of Child Children's Act Custody and Access

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K M

Applicant

J W

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has made out a proper case for the court to dispense with the respondent's consent for the minor child's relocation to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed relocation is bona fide, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor child.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's counter-application for primary residence and care of the minor child should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient and credible details regarding the arrangements for the minor child in the DRC, including accommodation, schooling, medical facilities, and safety. The applicant had not demonstrated that her relocation was bona fide or in the child's best interests. The minor child had formed a strong bond with the respondent during the applicant's absence, and the current environment was stable and suitable. The Family Advocate's report did not adequately address the practical implications of relocation, and the child's wishes could not be reliably ascertained due to his age. The court concluded that the applicant had not made out a proper...

Court Disposition

Application to dispense with consent for relocation refused; temporary primary care and residency of the minor child awarded to the respondent while the applicant is in the DRC; reasonable contact rights granted to the applicant.

Orders

  • The application to dispense with consent in terms of section 18(3)(c)(iii) and (iv) of the Children's Act is refused.
  • Both parties shall retain parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the minor child, subject to the orders herein.