P v P (6743/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 174; [2020] 2 All SA 587 (WCC) (19 December 2019)

P v P (6743/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 174; [2020] 2 All SA 587 (WCC) (19 December 2019)

The court found that Alan failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding his financial position, employment prospects, and arrangements for the children’s schooling and living conditions in Alaska. He did not demonstrate that he could fund regular contact between Ann and the children if they relocated. The expert evidence supporting Alan was found to be insufficiently impartial and did not adequately consider the impact of relocation on the girls or the practicalities of maintaining their relationship with Ann. The court held that Ann had been a 'good enough' parent, and the allegations of neglect and corporal punishment were exaggerated. Larry’s strong preference to live with Alan was...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 174
Parties
Appellant: P (Ann); Respondent: P (Alan)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 December 2019
Case Number
6743/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From High Court Judgment, With Leave Granted by SCA
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted. Primary care of Larry awarded to Alan with authority to relocate to Alaska; primary care of Hayley and Lillian to remain with Ann in Cape Town. Costs below to be borne by each party; costs of appeal awarded to Ann.
Judges
Rogers, Savage, Nuku
Legal Topics
Variation of Custody Order, Relocation of Minor Children, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Best Interests of Child, Parental Alienation, Expert Evidence in Family Law
Family and Children Civil Procedure Variation of Custody Order Relocation of Minor Children Parental Responsibilities and Rights Best Interests of Child Parental Alienation Expert Evidence in Family Law

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

Parties

P (Ann)

Appellant

P (Alan)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From High Court Judgment, With Leave Granted by SCA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether primary care of the parties' three minor children should be transferred from the mother (Ann) to the father (Alan).
  2. 2 Whether Alan should be granted authority to relocate the children to Alaska, USA.
  3. 3 Whether it is in the best interests of the children to split siblings between parents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Alan failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding his financial position, employment prospects, and arrangements for the children’s schooling and living conditions in Alaska. He did not demonstrate that he could fund regular contact between Ann and the children if they relocated. The expert evidence supporting Alan was found to be insufficiently impartial and did not adequately consider the impact of relocation on the girls or the practicalities of maintaining their relationship with Ann. The court held that Ann had been a 'good enough' parent, and the allegations of neglect and corporal punishment were exaggerated. Larry’s strong preference to live with Alan was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted. Primary care of Larry awarded to Alan with authority to relocate to Alaska; primary care of Hayley and Lillian to remain with Ann in Cape Town. Costs below to be borne by each party; costs of appeal awarded to Ann.

Orders

  • Primary care of Larry awarded to Alan, with authority to relocate Larry to Alaska, USA.
  • Alan must register the relocation order as a mirror order in Alaska within 60 days and provide Ann with a copy.