Y.S v S.S (9895/25) [2025] ZAWCHC 125 (18 March 2025)

Y.S v S.S (9895/25) [2025] ZAWCHC 125 (18 March 2025)

The court found that the process initiated by the current clinical psychologist should not be duplicated or restarted, as it was already addressing the reintegration of the applicant and the child. The evidence indicated that the child’s refusal to have contact with the applicant was based on his own experiences and allegations of abuse, not solely on the respondent’s influence. The clinical psychologist’s approach of gradual, phased-in contact and reintegration therapy was deemed appropriate and in the child’s best interests. The court emphasized that both parents must cooperate with the clinical psychologist and refrain from exposing the child to toxic parental politics. The application...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 125
Parties
Applicant: Y[...] S[...]; Respondent: S[...] S[...] B[...] S[...]
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2025
Case Number
9895/25
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; current clinical psychologist to continue reintegration therapy at applicant’s cost; supervised contact arrangements ordered; no costs order made.
Judges
Thulare
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Supervised Contact, Best Interests of Child, Parenting Plan, Reintegration Therapy
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Responsibilities and Rights Supervised Contact Best Interests of Child Parenting Plan Reintegration Therapy

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y[...] S[...]

Applicant

S[...] S[...] B[...] S[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of a new educational and child psychologist is necessary for care and contact assessment.
  2. 2 Whether the current clinical psychologist's reintegration therapy should continue.
  3. 3 How supervised contact should be regulated pending the outcome of the criminal case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the process initiated by the current clinical psychologist should not be duplicated or restarted, as it was already addressing the reintegration of the applicant and the child. The evidence indicated that the child’s refusal to have contact with the applicant was based on his own experiences and allegations of abuse, not solely on the respondent’s influence. The clinical psychologist’s approach of gradual, phased-in contact and reintegration therapy was deemed appropriate and in the child’s best interests. The court emphasized that both parents must cooperate with the clinical psychologist and refrain from exposing the child to toxic parental politics. The application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; current clinical psychologist to continue reintegration therapy at applicant’s cost; supervised contact arrangements ordered; no costs order made.

Orders

  • The matter is treated as one of urgency.
  • The application to appoint Ms Leigh Pettigrew, an educational and child psychologist, is dismissed.