R B v M B (3567/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 187 (6 December 2018)

R B v M B (3567/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 187 (6 December 2018)

The court found that the best interests of the minor children would be served by maintaining the status quo, with primary care and residence remaining with the Respondent and the maternal grandparents until the Respondent completes her studies. The Family Advocate's report was accepted as thorough and impartial, and the Applicant failed to provide evidence that the current arrangement endangered or harmed the children. The court rejected the archaic maternal preference rule, emphasizing the importance of both parents in the children's lives, but concluded that disrupting the children's stable environment would not be in their best interests. The Applicant's proposal would result in the...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 187
Parties
Applicant: R B; Respondent: M B
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2018
Case Number
3567/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Notice of Motion Application to Amend Deed of Settlement
Outcome
Application to amend the Deed of Settlement and award primary residence to the Applicant is refused. Status quo is maintained with primary care and residence remaining with the Respondent and maternal grandparents until the Respondent completes her studies. Both parties are holders of parental rights and...
Judges
Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Primary Residence of Minor Children, Best Interests of Child, Contact Rights, Children S Act, Parental Alienation
Family and Children Parental Rights and Responsibilities Primary Residence of Minor Children Best Interests of Child Contact Rights Children S Act Parental Alienation

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R B

Applicant

M B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Notice of Motion Application to Amend Deed of Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should primary residence of the minor children remain with the Respondent or be awarded to the Applicant.
  2. 2 Is it in the best interests of the minor children to alter the current care arrangement.
  3. 3 Should the Deed of Settlement be amended as sought by the Applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the best interests of the minor children would be served by maintaining the status quo, with primary care and residence remaining with the Respondent and the maternal grandparents until the Respondent completes her studies. The Family Advocate's report was accepted as thorough and impartial, and the Applicant failed to provide evidence that the current arrangement endangered or harmed the children. The court rejected the archaic maternal preference rule, emphasizing the importance of both parents in the children's lives, but concluded that disrupting the children's stable environment would not be in their best interests. The Applicant's proposal would result in the...

Court Disposition

Application to amend the Deed of Settlement and award primary residence to the Applicant is refused. Status quo is maintained with primary care and residence remaining with the Respondent and maternal grandparents until the Respondent completes her studies. Both parties are holders of parental rights and...

Orders

  • Both parties are holders of Parental Rights and Responsibilities as contemplated in Section 18 of the Children’s Act.
  • The minor children’s primary care, including residence, is to remain with the Respondent.