M.A.D. v R.G. (2025/047056) [2025] ZAGPJHC 543 (27 May 2025)

M.A.D. v R.G. (2025/047056) [2025] ZAGPJHC 543 (27 May 2025)

The court found that the prohibition on therapy for the minor child, E[...], during a period of significant familial transition and conflict was not in her best interests. Both parties acknowledged E[...]’s anxiety, and the court, as upper guardian, determined that immediate therapeutic intervention was necessary to safeguard her constitutional rights and emotional wellbeing. The court held that, even absent a material change in circumstances, the interests of justice and the child’s welfare justified varying the interim order. The matter was also referred to the Family Advocate for urgent investigation and recommendations regarding E[...]’s care, residency, and contact arrangements. The...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 543
Parties
Applicant: M[...] A[...] D[...]; Respondent: R[...] G[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2025
Case Number
2025/047056
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Urgent Application to Vary Interim Order
Outcome
Application granted in part: the order prohibiting therapy is varied to allow immediate appointment of a therapist for the minor child; referral to the Family Advocate ordered; costs to be costs in the divorce action.
Judges
M Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Variation, Best Interests of Child, Therapeutic Intervention, Shared Residency, Family Advocate Investigation
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Variation Best Interests of Child Therapeutic Intervention Shared Residency Family Advocate Investigation

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[...] A[...] D[...]

Applicant

R[...] G[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Urgent Application to Vary Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim Rule 43 order prohibiting therapy for the minor child is patently unjust and should be varied.
  2. 2 Whether the interests of the minor child require immediate therapeutic intervention despite the absence of a material change in circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be referred to the Family Advocate for investigation into the child’s best interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prohibition on therapy for the minor child, E[...], during a period of significant familial transition and conflict was not in her best interests. Both parties acknowledged E[...]’s anxiety, and the court, as upper guardian, determined that immediate therapeutic intervention was necessary to safeguard her constitutional rights and emotional wellbeing. The court held that, even absent a material change in circumstances, the interests of justice and the child’s welfare justified varying the interim order. The matter was also referred to the Family Advocate for urgent investigation and recommendations regarding E[...]’s care, residency, and contact arrangements. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: the order prohibiting therapy is varied to allow immediate appointment of a therapist for the minor child; referral to the Family Advocate ordered; costs to be costs in the divorce action.

Orders

  • A therapist/play therapist shall be appointed by the parties for E[...] to assist and guide her during the transition phase and address her alleged anxiety; appointment to be done immediately.
  • The costs of the therapist shall be paid by the applicant.