L.B v L.A.E (8551/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1915 (21 November 2023)

L.B v L.A.E (8551/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1915 (21 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide compelling reasons for the appointment of a clinical psychologist, as the issues raised were adequately addressed by previous expert reports and the Family Advocate. The evidence showed that the minor child is generally happy, secure, and well-balanced, though some developmental concerns exist. The court determined that the current contact regime lacks sufficient structure and routine, contributing to the child's uneasiness. The best interests of the child require a more stable and predictable contact schedule, not increased contact or sleepovers as sought by the applicant. The court amended the parenting plan to provide for structured...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1915
Parties
Applicant: L. B.; Respondent: L. A. E.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2023
Case Number
8551/2022
Procedural Posture
Family Application / Judgment on Main and Counter Applications
Outcome
Part A of the applicant’s application for referral to a clinical psychologist is dismissed. The divorce order is amended to provide a more structured contact regime in line with the Family Advocate’s recommendations. Each party is to pay their own costs for both the main and counter applications.
Judges
Erasmus AJ
Legal Topics
Parenting Plan Variation, Best Interests of Child, Contact Rights, Clinical Psychologist Investigation, Family Advocate Report
Family and Children Parenting Plan Variation Best Interests of Child Contact Rights Clinical Psychologist Investigation Family Advocate Report

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. B.

Applicant

L. A. E.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Application / Judgment on Main and Counter Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputes between the parties regarding contact and midweek sleepovers should be referred to a clinical psychologist for investigation and report.
  2. 2 Whether the existing parenting plan/divorce order should be amended to alter the applicant's contact with the minor child.
  3. 3 What contact regime is in the best interests of the minor child given her age, development, and emotional needs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide compelling reasons for the appointment of a clinical psychologist, as the issues raised were adequately addressed by previous expert reports and the Family Advocate. The evidence showed that the minor child is generally happy, secure, and well-balanced, though some developmental concerns exist. The court determined that the current contact regime lacks sufficient structure and routine, contributing to the child's uneasiness. The best interests of the child require a more stable and predictable contact schedule, not increased contact or sleepovers as sought by the applicant. The court amended the parenting plan to provide for structured...

Court Disposition

Part A of the applicant’s application for referral to a clinical psychologist is dismissed. The divorce order is amended to provide a more structured contact regime in line with the Family Advocate’s recommendations. Each party is to pay their own costs for both the main and counter applications.

Orders

  • Part A of the applicant’s application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay his/her own costs associated with Part A of the applicant’s application.