S v S (9086/16; 8658/16; 2179/14) [2017] ZAWCHC 157 (28 June 2017)

S v S (9086/16; 8658/16; 2179/14) [2017] ZAWCHC 157 (28 June 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff’s litigation was driven by personal animosity and a desire for control, rather than the best interests of the children. The evidence, including expert reports and the facilitator’s directives, overwhelmingly supported the children remaining in the primary care of the defendant at Rooi-Els. The relocation was bona fide, reasonable, and communicated in advance. The plaintiff’s claims for relocation and primary care were dismissed as contrary to the children’s welfare. The court held that punitive costs orders were justified due to the plaintiff’s conduct, which was malicious and unnecessarily stressful for the defendant and children. The facilitator was...

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 157
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr S; Defendant: Mrs S
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Case Number
9086/16; 8658/16; 2179/14
Procedural Posture
Family and Children Application / Final Judgment After Trial and Argument
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claims in case 9086/16 are dismissed. Defendant’s application in case 8658/16 (Part B) is upheld. Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs in case 2179/14 and 9086/16 on an attorney and client basis. Both parties are ordered to undergo psychotherapy and communication coaching. Parenting plan amended to confirm...
Judges
Parker AJ
Legal Topics
Parenting Plan, Relocation of Minor Children, Costs in Child Related Litigation, Facilitation and Mediation, Co Parenting, Psychotherapy Orders
Family and Children Parenting Plan Relocation of Minor Children Costs in Child Related Litigation Facilitation and Mediation Co Parenting Psychotherapy Orders

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

Parties

Mr S

Plaintiff

Mrs S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family and Children Application / Final Judgment After Trial and Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay costs in case 2179/14, and on what basis.
  2. 2 Whether the facilitator Mr Craig Schneider should be removed.
  3. 3 Whether an alternative facilitator should be appointed, or mediation/arbitration ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff’s litigation was driven by personal animosity and a desire for control, rather than the best interests of the children. The evidence, including expert reports and the facilitator’s directives, overwhelmingly supported the children remaining in the primary care of the defendant at Rooi-Els. The relocation was bona fide, reasonable, and communicated in advance. The plaintiff’s claims for relocation and primary care were dismissed as contrary to the children’s welfare. The court held that punitive costs orders were justified due to the plaintiff’s conduct, which was malicious and unnecessarily stressful for the defendant and children. The facilitator was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s claims in case 9086/16 are dismissed. Defendant’s application in case 8658/16 (Part B) is upheld. Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs in case 2179/14 and 9086/16 on an attorney and client basis. Both parties are ordered to undergo psychotherapy and communication coaching. Parenting plan amended to confirm...

Orders

  • Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the application and counter-application in case 2179/14, including counsel and expert costs, on an attorney and own client basis.
  • Plaintiff’s claims in case 9086/16 are dismissed.