P.A.K v C.M.A.S.M (47512/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 269 (23 April 2021)

P.A.K v C.M.A.S.M (47512/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 269 (23 April 2021)

The court found that both parties contributed to the ongoing acrimony and instability affecting the minor children. While the respondent's initial relocation was rash and not condoned, it was not the sole factor in determining the children's best interests. The respondent remained the constant caregiver, and her ability to provide a secure environment in Maasstroom was established. The expert reports, particularly Ms. Fourie's, were considered but not accepted uncritically, as some recommendations lacked factual substantiation. The children's emotional bonds with both parents were acknowledged, but separating siblings was deemed contrary to their interests. The applicant's increased...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 269
Parties
Applicant: P A K; Respondent: C M A S M
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2021
Case Number
47512/18
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion and Supplementary Affidavits
Outcome
Respondent granted leave to relocate with the minor children to Maasstroom, Limpopo. Primary care and residence awarded to respondent. Settlement agreement amended. Detailed contact regime for applicant. Therapeutic and parental coordination ordered. Each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Children S Act, Primary Residence, Relocation of Minor Children, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Contact Regime, Therapeutic Intervention
Family and Children Children S Act Primary Residence Relocation of Minor Children Parental Rights and Responsibilities Contact Regime Therapeutic Intervention

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P A K

Applicant

C M A S M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion and Supplementary Affidavits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be granted leave to relocate with the minor children to Maasstroom, Limpopo.
  2. 2 Whether the primary care and residence of the minor children should vest with the respondent or the applicant.
  3. 3 What contact regime is in the best interests of the minor children post-relocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties contributed to the ongoing acrimony and instability affecting the minor children. While the respondent's initial relocation was rash and not condoned, it was not the sole factor in determining the children's best interests. The respondent remained the constant caregiver, and her ability to provide a secure environment in Maasstroom was established. The expert reports, particularly Ms. Fourie's, were considered but not accepted uncritically, as some recommendations lacked factual substantiation. The children's emotional bonds with both parents were acknowledged, but separating siblings was deemed contrary to their interests. The applicant's increased...

Court Disposition

Respondent granted leave to relocate with the minor children to Maasstroom, Limpopo. Primary care and residence awarded to respondent. Settlement agreement amended. Detailed contact regime for applicant. Therapeutic and parental coordination ordered. Each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is granted leave to relocate with the minor children to Maasstroom, Limpopo.
  • Clause 3 of the settlement agreement is amended: primary care and residence of the minor children shall vest with the respondent in Maasstroom, subject to the applicant's right of contact.