S.R v M.J.B (37209/2016) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1219 (25 October 2023)

S.R v M.J.B (37209/2016) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1219 (25 October 2023)

The court found that the Applicant is the primary caregiver and the minor children have expressed a clear wish to relocate to New Zealand with her. The Respondent has not had meaningful contact with the children for an extended period, and his conduct has contributed to their estrangement and fear. The financial circumstances necessitate relocation, and the Applicant's employment offer is bona fide. Expert reports did not substantiate parental alienation or any reason to delay relocation for therapy. The best interests of the children require that they relocate with the Applicant, with reunification therapy to occur post-relocation. The Respondent's refusal to consent was unreasonable,...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1219
Parties
Applicant: S R (born T); Respondent: M J B
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2023
Case Number
37209/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application for Relocation of Minor Children
Outcome
Application granted: Applicant authorised to relocate minor children to New Zealand; Respondent's consent dispensed with; contact and therapy arrangements ordered; costs apportioned.
Judges
Franck AJ
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Children, Best Interests of Child, Parental Consent Dispensed, Parenting Coordinator Appointment, Reunification Therapy, Costs Order
Family and Children Relocation of Minor Children Best Interests of Child Parental Consent Dispensed Parenting Coordinator Appointment Reunification Therapy Costs Order

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S R (born T)

Applicant

M J B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application for Relocation of Minor Children

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to permanently relocate the minor children to New Zealand.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent's consent to the relocation should be dispensed with.
  3. 3 Whether reunification therapy between the Respondent and minor children must occur prior to relocation or can occur post-relocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant is the primary caregiver and the minor children have expressed a clear wish to relocate to New Zealand with her. The Respondent has not had meaningful contact with the children for an extended period, and his conduct has contributed to their estrangement and fear. The financial circumstances necessitate relocation, and the Applicant's employment offer is bona fide. Expert reports did not substantiate parental alienation or any reason to delay relocation for therapy. The best interests of the children require that they relocate with the Applicant, with reunification therapy to occur post-relocation. The Respondent's refusal to consent was unreasonable,...

Court Disposition

Application granted: Applicant authorised to relocate minor children to New Zealand; Respondent's consent dispensed with; contact and therapy arrangements ordered; costs apportioned.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the Applicant to remove the minor children from South Africa and relocate them to New Zealand.
  • The requirement for the Respondent's consent to the relocation is dispensed with.