T.R.S.T v U.A.R and Others (019086/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 399 (14 April 2025)

T.R.S.T v U.A.R and Others (019086/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 399 (14 April 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the children's welfare, support, and safety in Israel. The applicant's employment prospects and financial situation were unclear, and her family in Israel was unlikely to provide adequate support. The risks associated with relocation, including exposure to ongoing conflict and future conscription, were significant. In contrast, the first respondent demonstrated the ability to provide stable accommodation, financial support, and care for the children in South Africa, with assistance from his fiancé and extended family. The children are well integrated into their current environment, and relocation would...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 399
Parties
Applicant: T[...] R[...] S[...] T[...]; Respondent: U[...] A[...] R[...]; Respondent: National Commissioner: South African Police Service; Respondent: Minister of Home Affairs; Respondent: Director-General: Department of Home Affairs
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2025
Case Number
019086/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Children, Best Interests of Child, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Maintenance, International Family Law
Family and Children Relocation of Minor Children Best Interests of Child Parental Responsibilities and Rights Maintenance International Family Law

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T[...] R[...] S[...] T[...]

Applicant

U[...] A[...] R[...]

Respondent

National Commissioner: South African Police Service

Respondent

Minister of Home Affairs

Respondent

Director-General: Department of Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the minor children to relocate permanently to Israel with the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of the children's welfare and support in Israel.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent can adequately care for the children in South Africa.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the children's welfare, support, and safety in Israel. The applicant's employment prospects and financial situation were unclear, and her family in Israel was unlikely to provide adequate support. The risks associated with relocation, including exposure to ongoing conflict and future conscription, were significant. In contrast, the first respondent demonstrated the ability to provide stable accommodation, financial support, and care for the children in South Africa, with assistance from his fiancé and extended family. The children are well integrated into their current environment, and relocation would...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The second respondent is ordered to immediately hand over the Israeli passport of the applicant back to her.