M v M (15986/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 4 (22 January 2018)

M v M (15986/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 4 (22 January 2018)

The court found that the defendant’s relocation to Germany was necessitated by her expiring visa and was not unreasonable or mala fide. The evidence established that the defendant had been the continuous and stabilising presence in the children’s lives, and that both parents were bonded with the children. The acrimony between the parties had negatively affected the children, but neither parent was found to be unfit. The defendant’s preparations for relocation, including employment, accommodation, and schooling, were adequate. The children’s German heritage and ability to communicate in German were considered, and the environment in Buchbach was found to be suitable. The plaintiff’s...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 4
Parties
Plaintiff: M.: K.; Defendant: M.: C. (born H.)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2018
Case Number
15986/2016
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The marriage is dissolved; the defendant is granted leave to relocate the minor children to Germany; primary care and residence of the children vests with the defendant; maintenance and rehabilitative maintenance are ordered; costs awarded to the defendant.
Judges
Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Divorce, Child Custody, Relocation of Minor Children, Spousal Maintenance, Child Maintenance, Parental Rights and Responsibilities
Family and Children Divorce Child Custody Relocation of Minor Children Spousal Maintenance Child Maintenance Parental Rights and Responsibilities

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.: K.

Plaintiff

M.: C. (born H.)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be granted leave to relocate the minor children to Germany.
  2. 2 Determination of the primary residence and care of the minor children post-divorce.
  3. 3 Appropriate maintenance for the defendant and the minor children.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant’s relocation to Germany was necessitated by her expiring visa and was not unreasonable or mala fide. The evidence established that the defendant had been the continuous and stabilising presence in the children’s lives, and that both parents were bonded with the children. The acrimony between the parties had negatively affected the children, but neither parent was found to be unfit. The defendant’s preparations for relocation, including employment, accommodation, and schooling, were adequate. The children’s German heritage and ability to communicate in German were considered, and the environment in Buchbach was found to be suitable. The plaintiff’s...

Court Disposition

The marriage is dissolved; the defendant is granted leave to relocate the minor children to Germany; primary care and residence of the children vests with the defendant; maintenance and rehabilitative maintenance are ordered; costs awarded to the defendant.

Orders

  • The marriage between the parties is dissolved.
  • The joint estate shall be divided, including pension and retirement annuity funds.