L.D v D.D (2566/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 105 (11 June 2020)

L.D v D.D (2566/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 105 (11 June 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in his financial circumstances to justify a reduction in maintenance. His lack of candour regarding his income and assets, coupled with continued support from his company, undermined his claim. Regarding contact rights, the court held that the Covid-19 regulations do not justify a blanket prohibition on contact between parent and child, especially where precautions are taken and there is no evidence of risk to the child. The insistence on supervised contact by a nanny was deemed excessive and detrimental to the development of a meaningful relationship. The court adopted the phased contact...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 105
Parties
Applicant: L D; Respondent: D D
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Case Number
2566/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Variation of Rule 43 Order
Outcome
Application for variation of maintenance dismissed; contact rights varied in accordance with Family Advocate recommendations.
Judges
Mathebula
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Variation, Maintenance Pendente Lite, Contact Rights, Covid19 Regulations, Parental Responsibilities, Children Act 38 2005
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Variation Maintenance Pendente Lite Contact Rights Covid19 Regulations Parental Responsibilities Children Act 38 2005

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L D

Applicant

D D

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Variation of Rule 43 Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying variation of the Rule 43 order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to reduced maintenance pendente lite for the minor child.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be granted unsupervised contact rights with the minor child during Covid-19 lockdown.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in his financial circumstances to justify a reduction in maintenance. His lack of candour regarding his income and assets, coupled with continued support from his company, undermined his claim. Regarding contact rights, the court held that the Covid-19 regulations do not justify a blanket prohibition on contact between parent and child, especially where precautions are taken and there is no evidence of risk to the child. The insistence on supervised contact by a nanny was deemed excessive and detrimental to the development of a meaningful relationship. The court adopted the phased contact...

Court Disposition

Application for variation of maintenance dismissed; contact rights varied in accordance with Family Advocate recommendations.

Orders

  • The applicant and respondent co-hold full and equal parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the minor child as envisaged by Section 18 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
  • The minor child shall reside primarily with the applicant.