M.D.B and Another v C.N (2023-113226) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1913 (17 November 2023)

M.D.B and Another v C.N (2023-113226) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1913 (17 November 2023)

The court found that, although the applicants formed a secure bond with the minor child and acted in her best interests, the Children’s Court had recently determined primary care and residence, including a prohibition on contact for sixty days. The High Court, as upper guardian, should be slow to alter the dynamics established by the Children’s Court, especially where multiple social workers and a legal representative for the child were involved. The applicants failed to consult with the court-appointed therapist before approaching the court, rendering the application premature. However, in light of the principle that anyone with an interest in the child may apply for contact, and...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1913
Parties
Applicant: M[...] D[...] B[...]; Applicant: A[...] D[...] B[...]; Respondent: C[...] N[...]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Case Number
2023-113226
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Contact Pending Investigation by Family Advocate
Outcome
Application for interim contact dismissed; alternative relief granted.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Children S Act Section 23, Best Interests of Child, Contact Rights, Urgent Interim Relief
Family and Children Children S Act Section 23 Best Interests of Child Contact Rights Urgent Interim Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[...] D[...] B[...]

Applicant

A[...] D[...] B[...]

Applicant

C[...] N[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Contact Pending Investigation by Family Advocate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim contact with the minor child pending the Family Advocate's investigation.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is sufficiently urgent to warrant hearing in the urgent court.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court should intervene after the Children’s Court order prohibiting contact for sixty days.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the applicants formed a secure bond with the minor child and acted in her best interests, the Children’s Court had recently determined primary care and residence, including a prohibition on contact for sixty days. The High Court, as upper guardian, should be slow to alter the dynamics established by the Children’s Court, especially where multiple social workers and a legal representative for the child were involved. The applicants failed to consult with the court-appointed therapist before approaching the court, rendering the application premature. However, in light of the principle that anyone with an interest in the child may apply for contact, and...

Court Disposition

Application for interim contact dismissed; alternative relief granted.

Orders

  • The applicants are entitled to consult with Ms. Eunice Uys regarding the desirability of restoring contact with M at a round-table discussion where all parties are present.
  • The respondent is to provide the applicants with updates regarding M’s physical and emotional progress on a six-weekly basis for the next six months.