M.S.R v K.K.T (89753/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 21 (22 January 2015)

M.S.R v K.K.T (89753/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 21 (22 January 2015)

The court found that, although the applicant is the natural father and has rights and obligations towards the child, he had not had contact with the child for approximately two years. There was no evidence that the child was not being properly cared for in the respondent's absence, as arrangements had been made for her care at the common home. Granting the applicant primary residence at this stage, without a proper investigation by the Family Advocate, would be disruptive and not in the child's best interests. The urgency of the application was accommodated only because it concerned the interests of a minor. The court postponed the application sine die, maintained the existing access...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 21
Parties
Applicant: M[...] S[...] R[...]; Respondent: K[...] K[...] T[...]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2015
Case Number
89753/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Urgent Application for Variation of Interim Maintenance and Custody Order
Outcome
Application postponed sine die; existing access arrangements remain; Family Advocate to investigate and report; costs reserved.
Judges
BAM
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Procedure, Custody and Access, Best Interests of Child, Maintenance Order Variation
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Procedure Custody and Access Best Interests of Child Maintenance Order Variation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Applicant

K[...] K[...] T[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Urgent Application for Variation of Interim Maintenance and Custody Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary residence of the minor child should be transferred to the applicant pending investigation.
  2. 2 Whether the previous maintenance obligations under Rule 43 should be rescinded.
  3. 3 Whether the Family Advocate should urgently investigate the best interests of the child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the applicant is the natural father and has rights and obligations towards the child, he had not had contact with the child for approximately two years. There was no evidence that the child was not being properly cared for in the respondent's absence, as arrangements had been made for her care at the common home. Granting the applicant primary residence at this stage, without a proper investigation by the Family Advocate, would be disruptive and not in the child's best interests. The urgency of the application was accommodated only because it concerned the interests of a minor. The court postponed the application sine die, maintained the existing access...

Court Disposition

Application postponed sine die; existing access arrangements remain; Family Advocate to investigate and report; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is postponed sine die.
  • The applicant's access to the child as provided for in the Rule 43 order dated 24 May 2013 remains in place.