S v S (18545/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 523 (7 April 2021)

S v S (18545/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 523 (7 April 2021)

The court found that both parents had failed to fully comply with their obligations under the 2018 settlement agreement, particularly the undertakings in clause 4.20 to respect each other's parental rights and to avoid conduct that could alienate the child from the other parent. The complaints raised by the applicant did not justify immediate litigation or variation of the shared residency arrangement, as both parties contributed to the breakdown in communication and mutual respect. The court held that before considering any variation of the residency and contact arrangements, the parties must engage in a structured process of parenting coordination under the supervision of a professional...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 523
Parties
Applicant: H[....] S[....]; Respondent: N[....] DS S[....]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 April 2021
Case Number
18545/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application Regarding Appointment of Parenting Coordinator and Postponement of Relief.
Outcome
Application for relief in Part A postponed sine die; appointment of parenting coordinator ordered; costs reserved.
Judges
Turner
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Parenting Coordination, Best Interests of Child, Variation of Settlement Agreement
Family and Children Parental Responsibilities and Rights Parenting Coordination Best Interests of Child Variation of Settlement Agreement

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

Parties

H[....] S[....]

Applicant

N[....] DS S[....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application Regarding Appointment of Parenting Coordinator and Postponement of Relief.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of a parenting coordinator is necessary before varying the existing shared residency arrangement for the minor child.
  2. 2 Whether the parties have complied with their obligations under the 2018 settlement agreement regarding the care and contact of the minor child.
  3. 3 Whether the complaints raised by the applicant justify immediate litigation or variation of the current residency and contact arrangements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parents had failed to fully comply with their obligations under the 2018 settlement agreement, particularly the undertakings in clause 4.20 to respect each other's parental rights and to avoid conduct that could alienate the child from the other parent. The complaints raised by the applicant did not justify immediate litigation or variation of the shared residency arrangement, as both parties contributed to the breakdown in communication and mutual respect. The court held that before considering any variation of the residency and contact arrangements, the parties must engage in a structured process of parenting coordination under the supervision of a professional...

Court Disposition

Application for relief in Part A postponed sine die; appointment of parenting coordinator ordered; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application for the relief claimed in Part A is postponed sine die.
  • Dr Lynette Roux is appointed as the parenting coordinator; if unavailable, a substitute recommended by the Office of the Family Advocate is to be appointed.