South Africa Case Law

B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024)

B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 96 (13 May 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

1909/2024

Judge

Mangena

The court found that the Family Advocate's report substantiated the applicant's claim of parental alienation by the respondent, including exclusion from decision-making and negative remarks to the children. The evidence demonstrated that increased contact with the applicant was in the children's best interests to prevent further emotional harm. The applicant's proposal for extended contact was reasonable given the proximity of the parties' residences and the need to foster a healthy parent-child relationship. The court was not persuaded by the applicant's financial hardship claim regarding sp…

Source excerpt

• Parental Alienation
• Contact Rights
• Rule 43 Variation
• Spousal Maintenance
• Best Interests Of Child

D.R.R v S.D.R and Another (8947/2022P)

D.R.R v S.D.R and Another (8947/2022P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 26 (13 March 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8947/2022P

Judge

Mossop

The High Court held that the siblings should not remain separated and awarded primary care of both children to their mother, with contact for the father.

• Primary Care
• Separation Of Siblings
• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Alienation
• Contact Rights
• Family-law

JK v JK (2020/40619)

JK v JK (2020/40619) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1275 (11 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/40619

Judge

G Farber

The court referred the child-residency dispute to the Family Advocate, set aside an earlier contact restriction, and made costs orders for the earlier and current proceedings.

• Shared Residency
• Best Interests Of Child
• Family Advocate Investigation
• Contact Rights
• Costs Orders
• Family-law

E.B.S v S.P (2024/119436)

E.B.S v S.P (2024/119436) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1173 (1 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/119436

Judge

Nieuwoudt

The High Court set interim contact arrangements for two young children, ordered family intervention, and emphasized co-parenting and the children’s best interests.

• Parenting Plan
• Contact Rights
• Children S Act
• Best Interests Of Child
• Child-contact
• Parenting-plans

V.D.S v W.M (1702/2018)

V.D.S v W.M (1702/2018) [2024] ZAWCHC 295 (16 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1702/2018

Judge

Andrews

The court found that the applicant failed to exhaust the internal remedies provided in the Parenting Plan, which require disputes to be resolved first through a Parent Plan Collaborator and then a facilitator before litigation is pursued. The applicant did not provide cogent reasons for bypassing these mechanisms. Furthermore, the applicant did not discharge the onus to prove that the proposed variation to the Parenting Plan would be in the best interests of the children, as their voices and participation were absent from the process. The court emphasized the constitutional and statutory impe…

Source excerpt

• Parenting Plan Variation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion
• Contact Rights
• Medical Expenses Liability

R.M.T v P.D.T (28972/2023)

R.M.T v P.D.T (28972/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 714 (16 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28972/2023

Judge

JA Kok

The applicant satisfied the requirements for contempt of court by proving the existence of a valid court order, the respondent's knowledge of the order, and her failure to comply. The respondent's allegations of sexual abuse, which formed the basis for withholding contact, were not substantiated by evidence and had previously been investigated in the Children's Court and divorce proceedings. In the interests of fairness, the court granted the respondent an opportunity to substantiate her allegations through a detailed affidavit. If she fails to do so, it will be inferred that there are no def…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Contact Rights
• Sexual Abuse Allegations
• Children's Court Orders

P.D and Another v A.R and Another (D779/2023)

P.D and Another v A.R and Another (D779/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 27 (17 May 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D779/2023

Judge

Mossop

The court found that the applicants, who are not biologically related to the minor child, have no entitlement in law to demand contact with her against the wishes of her parents. The arrangement for care was always subject to the respondents’ consent and did not confer any legal rights on the applicants. No urgency was established, as the applicants failed to demonstrate why substantial redress could not be obtained at a hearing in due course, nor did they allege any harm or risk to the child. The Family Advocate’s proposed contact regime was deemed inappropriate, as it would unjustifiably di…

Source excerpt

• Contact Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Responsibilities
• Children S Act
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings

F.H v S.F.H (126003/2023)

F.H v S.F.H (126003/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 346 (8 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

126003/2023

Judge

Leso

Leave to appeal was refused in a child-contact dispute, with the court holding it could correct obvious errors in its earlier orders and that no appealable prospect existed.

• Leave To Appeal
• Variation Of Court Orders
• Best Interests Of Child
• Costs Order
• Urgency
• Contact Rights

D.S.F v M.F and Another (347/2024)

D.S.F v M.F and Another (347/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 48 (16 February 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

347/2024

Judge

Van Zyl

An urgent family-law application was postponed after the court found that lis pendens and res judicata could not be decided without considering the merits.

• Primary Residence Of Minor
• Contact Rights
• Lis Pendens
• Res Judicata
• Interlocutory Postponement
• Family-law

G.D v M.M (4809/2022)

G.D v M.M (4809/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 65 (29 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

4809/2022

Judge

Strijdom

The High Court dismissed a father’s bid to terminate the mother’s parental rights and ordered a forensic assessment and Family Advocate inquiry into the child’s best interests.

• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Forensic Assessment
• Contact Rights
• Guardianship
• Children S Act