L[...] D[...] K[...] v L[...] D[...] K[...] (2022/21021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1051 (14 October 2024)

L[...] D[...] K[...] v L[...] D[...] K[...] (2022/21021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1051 (14 October 2024)

The court found that the Applicant failed to comply with the Practice Directive requiring full financial disclosure, and his version regarding financial matters could not be accepted. The Respondent's evidence regarding the needs and expenses of the minor children was accepted as unchallenged. The recommendations of the counselling psychologist, Dr Duchen, were adopted, finding that the children should reside primarily with the Respondent and that the Applicant's contact should be supervised and subject to sobriety verification. The appointment of a parenting coordinator was deemed necessary to mediate ongoing parental disputes. Maintenance was set at an amount to cover the Respondent's...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1051
Parties
Applicant: L[...] D[...] K[...]; Respondent: L[...] D[...] K[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2024
Case Number
2022/21021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Relief and Counter Application
Outcome
The Applicant's application for custody is dismissed. The Respondent's counter-application is granted, with orders as set out.
Judges
Poswa-Lerotholi
Legal Topics
Custody of Minors, Interim Maintenance, Parenting Coordinator, Best Interests of Child, Financial Disclosure, Rule 43 Procedure
Family and Children Civil Procedure Custody of Minors Interim Maintenance Parenting Coordinator Best Interests of Child Financial Disclosure Rule 43 Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L[...] D[...] K[...]

Applicant

L[...] D[...] K[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Relief and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary residence and care of the minor children should remain with the Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's visitation rights should be exercised under supervision.
  3. 3 Whether a parenting coordinator should be appointed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant failed to comply with the Practice Directive requiring full financial disclosure, and his version regarding financial matters could not be accepted. The Respondent's evidence regarding the needs and expenses of the minor children was accepted as unchallenged. The recommendations of the counselling psychologist, Dr Duchen, were adopted, finding that the children should reside primarily with the Respondent and that the Applicant's contact should be supervised and subject to sobriety verification. The appointment of a parenting coordinator was deemed necessary to mediate ongoing parental disputes. Maintenance was set at an amount to cover the Respondent's...

Court Disposition

The Applicant's application for custody is dismissed. The Respondent's counter-application is granted, with orders as set out.

Orders

  • The primary residence of the minor children shall vest with the Respondent.
  • The Applicant shall abstain from alcohol use when exercising contact with the children.