S.E.I v R.A.A.M (31604/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 439 (11 August 2020)

S.E.I v R.A.A.M (31604/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 439 (11 August 2020)

The court found that the parties had reached substantial agreement regarding interim contact and access to the minor children, including the appointment of a psychiatrist and mediator and investigation by the Family Advocate. The only remaining dispute concerned the type and supervision of contact pending evaluation. Given the agreement reached and the steps taken to safeguard the children's best interests, the court held that any urgency justifying the application had been resolved. Accordingly, the application was no longer urgent and was struck off the roll. No order as to costs was made, considering the agreement reached and the best interests of the children.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 439
Parties
Applicant: S E I[….]; Respondent: R A A M[….]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2020
Case Number
31604/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Application struck off the roll; no order as to costs.
Judges
D S Fourie
Legal Topics
Interim Contact, Best Interests of Child, Parental Access, Psychiatric Evaluation
Family and Children Interim Contact Best Interests of Child Parental Access Psychiatric Evaluation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S E I[….]

Applicant

R A A M[….]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim contact with the minor children pending forensic evaluation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's contact with the children should be supervised.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant may take the minor boy to Durban, subject to travel arrangements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties had reached substantial agreement regarding interim contact and access to the minor children, including the appointment of a psychiatrist and mediator and investigation by the Family Advocate. The only remaining dispute concerned the type and supervision of contact pending evaluation. Given the agreement reached and the steps taken to safeguard the children's best interests, the court held that any urgency justifying the application had been resolved. Accordingly, the application was no longer urgent and was struck off the roll. No order as to costs was made, considering the agreement reached and the best interests of the children.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.