Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
T.W.R v A.P.R (2022-15109) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1016 (11 September 2023)
In a Rule 43 interim divorce application, the High Court referred the matter to the Family Advocate, granted reasonable child access, and ordered maintenance and household expenses.
S.E.I v R.A.A.M (31604/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 439 (11 August 2020)
The High Court struck an urgent child-contact application from the roll after the parties largely agreed interim access arrangements pending further evaluation.
V v V (72506/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 531 (1 March 2013)
Rule 43 interim maintenance case granting the applicant primary residence of the children, structured access for the respondent, and a reduced costs contribution.
Redelinghuys v Redelinghuys (2075/08) [2010] ZAECPEHC 68 (22 October 2010)
The court varied a child access order after finding serious parental alienation and conflict, imposing phased contact and telephonic access in the child’s best interests.
K v K (17189/08) [2009] ZAGPJHC 13 (6 May 2009)
The court refused a father's bid to relocate a child to Israel, finding the evidence insufficient to show the move was in the child's best interests.
B v B (40875/2006) [2007] ZAGPHC 222 (21 September 2007)
The High Court dismissed an application alleging contempt of a Rule 43 order, finding insufficient proof that the respondent failed to pay the bond or municipal account.
Santos v Santos (33232/2005) [2005] ZAGPHC 338 (11 November 2005)
In an interim custody dispute pending divorce, the court awarded custody of two young boys to their mother, stressing stability, daily care, and nursery school.
Boehmke v McGregor (25560/04 , 04/25560) [2005] ZAGPHC 114; [2006] 3 All SA 109 (W); 2006 (9) BCLR 1034 (W) (1 November 2005)
The appeal court found that the relocation of the appellant and her husband to Cape Town was genuine, reasonable, and motivated by legitimate family and employment considerations. The primary residence of the children was with the appellant, who was the full-time caregiver, and the children identified their primary family unit as comprising their mother, stepfather, and half-brother. The court held that the disruption caused by refusing relocation would outweigh the disadvantages of diminished contact with the respondent, as it would fracture the children's primary family, place strain on the…
Source excerpt
Jackson v Jackson (18/2001) [2001] ZASCA 139; 2002 (2) SA 303 (SCA) (29 November 2001)
Appeal about whether two children should be allowed to emigrate with their custodial father to Australia after divorce.
Baars v Scott (556/93) [1995] ZASCA 71; [1995] 4 All SA 392 (AD) (31 May 1995)
South African law does not accord a father an inherent right of access to his illegitimate child. Parental authority, and thus the right to access, vests in the mother unless the father marries the mother or adopts the child. The child's welfare is the central consideration in determining access, and the father may be granted access only if it is in the child's best interests. The litigation is not adversarial, and there is no evidentiary onus on either party in first-time access or custody determinations. The matter should not have been decided solely on affidavit, and oral evidence should h…
Source excerpt
Explore more
