L.S.M v T.C.T (3701/2021) [2024] ZAMPMHC 58 (8 November 2024)

L.S.M v T.C.T (3701/2021) [2024] ZAMPMHC 58 (8 November 2024)

The court found that the applicant's decision to relocate was bona fide and reasonable, motivated by employment and career advancement. The respondent's refusal to consent was deemed selfish and not based on the child's best interests, as he failed to raise any substantive concerns about the child's wellbeing. Both the Family Counsellor and Clinical Psychologist recommended that the child's primary residence should be with the applicant, and the child's own preference was to live with her mother and siblings. The grandparents, who had been caring for the child, did not object to the relocation. The court held that delaying the relocation was not justified, as the child's educational and...

Citation
[2024] ZAMPMHC 58
Parties
Applicant: L[...] S[...] M[...]; Respondent: T[...] C[...] T[...]
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2024
Case Number
3701/2021
Procedural Posture
Family Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted with costs; leave to relocate the minor child to Mauritius awarded to the applicant.
Judges
MBG Langa
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Primary Residence, Parental Consent, Best Interests of Child, Custody, Visitation Rights
Family and Children Child Relocation Primary Residence Parental Consent Best Interests of Child Custody Visitation Rights

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L[...] S[...] M[...]

Applicant

T[...] C[...] T[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to relocate the minor child to Mauritius.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's refusal to consent to relocation is justified and in the child's best interests.
  3. 3 What arrangements should be made for the child's primary residence and contact with the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's decision to relocate was bona fide and reasonable, motivated by employment and career advancement. The respondent's refusal to consent was deemed selfish and not based on the child's best interests, as he failed to raise any substantive concerns about the child's wellbeing. Both the Family Counsellor and Clinical Psychologist recommended that the child's primary residence should be with the applicant, and the child's own preference was to live with her mother and siblings. The grandparents, who had been caring for the child, did not object to the relocation. The court held that delaying the relocation was not justified, as the child's educational and...

Court Disposition

Application granted with costs; leave to relocate the minor child to Mauritius awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to remove the minor child from South Africa to Mauritius on a permanent or temporary basis.
  • The applicant is awarded primary residency, sole care, and custody of the minor child for as long as she resides in Mauritius, subject to review upon permanent return to South Africa.