O.M v M.C (2022/031103) [2023] ZAGPJHC 254 (3 March 2023)

O.M v M.C (2022/031103) [2023] ZAGPJHC 254 (3 March 2023)

The court found that the best interests of the minor child require a reunification process that is not remote and should commence before relocation to Australia. The process must be guided by an independent female psychologist, nominated by the Gauteng Family Law Forum, to avoid compromising the therapeutic relationship with the current therapist, O'Mahony. The psychologist's mandate is broad, including facilitating pre-departure contact, constructing a parenting plan, and monitoring reunification post-relocation. The applicant is authorised to relocate with the child, and both parents retain full parental responsibilities and rights. Costs are to be borne individually, reflecting the...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 254
Parties
Applicant: OM; Respondent: MC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2023
Case Number
2022/031103
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part: relocation authorised, reunification process ordered, costs to be borne individually.
Judges
F Bezuidenhout
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Reunification Therapy, Parental Alienation, Best Interests of Child, Costs Order
Family and Children Relocation of Minor Parental Responsibilities and Rights Reunification Therapy Parental Alienation Best Interests of Child Costs Order

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OM

Applicant

MC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reunification process between the minor child and her father should commence before or after relocation to Australia.
  2. 2 Who should conduct the reunification process: the current therapist or an independent psychologist.
  3. 3 Which party should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the best interests of the minor child require a reunification process that is not remote and should commence before relocation to Australia. The process must be guided by an independent female psychologist, nominated by the Gauteng Family Law Forum, to avoid compromising the therapeutic relationship with the current therapist, O'Mahony. The psychologist's mandate is broad, including facilitating pre-departure contact, constructing a parenting plan, and monitoring reunification post-relocation. The applicant is authorised to relocate with the child, and both parents retain full parental responsibilities and rights. Costs are to be borne individually, reflecting the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: relocation authorised, reunification process ordered, costs to be borne individually.

Orders

  • Both parents retain full parental responsibilities and rights, including guardianship.
  • Applicant authorised to permanently remove the minor child from South Africa and relocate to Australia, subject to specified conditions.