M.A.M v M.S.M (070320-2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1961 (27 November 2023)

M.A.M v M.S.M (070320-2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1961 (27 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for sole guardianship or exclusive authority regarding the minor child's passport and international travel. The respondent's request for more information about the trip was reasonable and did not amount to an unreasonable refusal. The court emphasised that terminating a father's guardianship over his biological child on such grounds is disproportionate. However, due to ongoing conflict and poor communication between the parties, the court deemed it in the child's best interests to appoint a parent coordinator to facilitate joint decisions, draft a parenting plan if necessary, and mediate disputes. Each party is to bear their own...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1961
Parties
Applicant: M[...] A[...] M[...]; Respondent: M[...] S[...] M[...]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2023
Case Number
070320-2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed; parent coordinator appointed; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Sole Guardianship, Parenting Plan, Parent Coordinator, Variation of Settlement Agreement
Family and Children Sole Guardianship Parenting Plan Parent Coordinator Variation of Settlement Agreement

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Applicant

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

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has made out a case for sole guardianship of the minor child.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be the only parent authorised to apply for a passport and consent to international travel for the minor child.
  3. 3 Whether the divorce settlement agreement should be varied accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for sole guardianship or exclusive authority regarding the minor child's passport and international travel. The respondent's request for more information about the trip was reasonable and did not amount to an unreasonable refusal. The court emphasised that terminating a father's guardianship over his biological child on such grounds is disproportionate. However, due to ongoing conflict and poor communication between the parties, the court deemed it in the child's best interests to appoint a parent coordinator to facilitate joint decisions, draft a parenting plan if necessary, and mediate disputes. Each party is to bear their own...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; parent coordinator appointed; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed; each party must pay their own costs.
  • Dr. Louisa Stoker of Confident 2 Thrive is appointed as parent coordinator.