M[...] v B[...] (16306/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 230 (12 April 2021)

M[...] v B[...] (16306/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 230 (12 April 2021)

The court found that the matter was inherently urgent and that the parties had agreed to an expert assessment of the minor child's best interests. The report by Ms. Jana van Jaarsveld, an educational psychologist, was deemed admissible and relevant, as educational psychologists regularly assess children in custody disputes. The report indicated that the minor child expressed a clear wish to remain with his father in Pretoria, that his stability was rooted in his school and extended family, and that his strongest attachment was with the applicant. The respondent's arguments regarding her role as primary caregiver and the child's adjustment in Cape Town were considered, but the court found...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 230
Parties
Applicant: V[...] M[...] : C[...] P[...]; Respondent: B[…] : J[…] E[…]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Case Number
16306/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Investigation by the Family Advocate
Outcome
Interim primary care and residence of the minor child awarded to the applicant pending investigation by the Family Advocate. Each party to bear their own costs.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Best Interests of Child, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Relocation of Minor, Interim Care and Contact, Children Act Section 7 and 9
Family and Children Child Custody Best Interests of Child Parental Rights and Responsibilities Relocation of Minor Interim Care and Contact Children Act Section 7 and 9

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V[...] M[...] : C[...] P[...]

Applicant

B[…] : J[…] E[…]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Investigation by the Family Advocate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minor child's primary care and residence should be awarded to the applicant pending investigation by the Family Advocate.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's relocation with the minor child to the Western Cape is in the child's best interests.
  3. 3 Admissibility of the educational psychologist's report in determining the child's best interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter was inherently urgent and that the parties had agreed to an expert assessment of the minor child's best interests. The report by Ms. Jana van Jaarsveld, an educational psychologist, was deemed admissible and relevant, as educational psychologists regularly assess children in custody disputes. The report indicated that the minor child expressed a clear wish to remain with his father in Pretoria, that his stability was rooted in his school and extended family, and that his strongest attachment was with the applicant. The respondent's arguments regarding her role as primary caregiver and the child's adjustment in Cape Town were considered, but the court found...

Court Disposition

Interim primary care and residence of the minor child awarded to the applicant pending investigation by the Family Advocate. Each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • Pending investigations by the Office of the Family Advocate, the primary care and residence of the minor child is awarded to the applicant and the child is to be placed in the care of the applicant within 7 calendar days from the date of this order.
  • The respondent shall exercise rights of contact as specified: every alternative weekend, every short school holiday and half of every long school holiday, every long weekend, daily telephonic contact, shared birthdays, Mother's Day and Father's Day weekends as arranged.