P.K v L.K (2021/1368) [2024] ZAGPJHC 922; [2025] 1 All SA 226 (GJ) (4 September 2024)

P.K v L.K (2021/1368) [2024] ZAGPJHC 922; [2025] 1 All SA 226 (GJ) (4 September 2024)

The court found that the acrimonious relationship between the parties has had a profound adverse impact on their minor daughter, who is exhibiting signs of psychological splitting. The applicant's attempts to remove the parenting coordinator were motivated by disagreement with her recommendations rather than any proven failure of duty. Disagreement alone is insufficient for removal. The PC's duty is to the child, and she must be able to perform her role without intimidation or interference. The court appointed a new PC, Advocate Karen Green, with safeguards to ensure her independence. The court ordered a follow-up assessment of the child by Dr Ronel Duchen, given her prior involvement and...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 922
Parties
Applicant: P[...] K[...]; Respondent: L[...] K[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2024
Case Number
2021/1368
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Application Pending Divorce
Outcome
Application dismissed as regards reinstatement of the 3-2-2 regime and removal of the parenting coordinator. New parenting coordinator appointed. Orders made for assessment and therapy of the minor child. Costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Segal
Legal Topics
Parenting Coordination, Child Contact Arrangements, Best Interests of Child, Therapeutic Intervention, Parenting Styles Alignment
Family and Children Parenting Coordination Child Contact Arrangements Best Interests of Child Therapeutic Intervention Parenting Styles Alignment

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P[...] K[...]

Applicant

L[...] K[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Application Pending Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parenting coordinator should be removed due to breakdown in relationship with the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the 3-2-2 shared residence regime should be reinstated for the minor child.
  3. 3 How the minor child's contact with each parent should be structured pending further assessment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the acrimonious relationship between the parties has had a profound adverse impact on their minor daughter, who is exhibiting signs of psychological splitting. The applicant's attempts to remove the parenting coordinator were motivated by disagreement with her recommendations rather than any proven failure of duty. Disagreement alone is insufficient for removal. The PC's duty is to the child, and she must be able to perform her role without intimidation or interference. The court appointed a new PC, Advocate Karen Green, with safeguards to ensure her independence. The court ordered a follow-up assessment of the child by Dr Ronel Duchen, given her prior involvement and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as regards reinstatement of the 3-2-2 regime and removal of the parenting coordinator. New parenting coordinator appointed. Orders made for assessment and therapy of the minor child. Costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The Rule 43 Order of 24 October 2022 is varied as set out in the judgment.
  • Contact arrangements for the minor child are specified, including weekends, midweek, holidays, birthdays, and electronic contact.