T.C v S.C (20286/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 46; 2018 (4) SA 530 (WCC) (18 April 2018)

T.C v S.C (20286/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 46; 2018 (4) SA 530 (WCC) (18 April 2018)

The court held that it does not have the power to appoint a parenting coordinator (facilitator) with decision-making authority over the objection of a parent unless there is an agreed parenting plan made an order of court and strict limitations are imposed on the coordinator's powers. The court found that the application was premature, as the parties had not agreed on a parenting plan and mediation had not been exhausted. The court declined to order the immediate transition of the minor child's diabetes sensor, finding that the mother was acting reasonably and in consultation with medical professionals, and that urgency was not established. The court also refused to enforce mid-week...

Citation
[2018] ZAWCHC 46
Parties
Applicant: T C; Respondent: S C
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 April 2018
Case Number
20286/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Relief Application Pending Divorce Action
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
D M Davis
Legal Topics
Parenting Coordination, Children's Act 38 of 2005, Interim Relief, Best Interests of Child, Delegation of Judicial Authority
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parenting Coordination Children's Act 38 of 2005 Interim Relief Best Interests of Child Delegation of Judicial Authority

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T C

Applicant

S C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Relief Application Pending Divorce Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court may appoint a parenting coordinator (facilitator) to resolve parenting disputes over the objection of one parent.
  2. 2 Whether the court should order the immediate transition of the minor child's diabetes sensor device.
  3. 3 Whether mid-week sleepover contact should be enforced pendente lite against the wishes of the mother.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it does not have the power to appoint a parenting coordinator (facilitator) with decision-making authority over the objection of a parent unless there is an agreed parenting plan made an order of court and strict limitations are imposed on the coordinator's powers. The court found that the application was premature, as the parties had not agreed on a parenting plan and mediation had not been exhausted. The court declined to order the immediate transition of the minor child's diabetes sensor, finding that the mother was acting reasonably and in consultation with medical professionals, and that urgency was not established. The court also refused to enforce mid-week...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the respondent’s costs of suit on the party and party scale, including the costs of two counsel and expert reports relied on by the respondent.