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

G.J.N v M.C (34350/2020)

G.J.N v M.C (34350/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 329 (24 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34350/2020

Judge

Retief

High Court orders a forensic investigation into children’s best interests, appoints a parenting coordinator, and dismisses the respondent’s counterclaim.

• Primary Residence
• Parental Alienation
• Forensic Investigation
• Parenting Coordinator
• Variation Of Settlement Agreement
• Maintenance

T.M.N v Y.N (2024/110088)

T.M.N v Y.N (2024/110088) [2025] ZAGPJHC 260 (13 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/110088

Judge

F Marcandonatos

The High Court changed the children’s primary residence to the applicant, citing the respondent’s alcohol use, conflictual co-parenting, and parental alienation concerns.

• Primary Residence
• Parental Alienation
• Alcohol Abuse
• Co Parenting
• Children Best Interests
• Expert Evidence

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

H.S.E v H.A.E (3350/2022)

H.S.E v H.A.E (3350/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 45 (26 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3350/2022

Judge

Daniso

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that a change in primary residence and care would be in the best interests of the minor children. The psychologist's report relied upon was outdated and did not address the children's views, which are statutorily required. The family advocate's report, which included the children's perspectives and a thorough assessment, found no evidence of parental alienation and recommended that residence remain with the respondent. The applicant's allegations were not supported by credible evidence, and his persistent li…

Source excerpt

• Variation Of Custody Order
• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Alienation
• Maintenance Enforcement
• Children S Act
• Costs Punitive Scale

M.D v L.N and Another (Reasons) (3051/2020)

M.D v L.N and Another (Reasons) (3051/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 4 (3 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

3051/2020

Judge

T Rossi

High Court child-care matter on parental alienation: rule nisi confirmed, primary residence moved to the applicant, with therapeutic and managed contact orders.

• Parental Alienation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Care And Contact
• Children S Act
• Parenting Coordinator
• Therapeutic Intervention

J.S v Z.M (2024/090962)

J.S v Z.M (2024/090962) [2024] ZAGPJHC 859 (29 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/090962

Judge

Du Plessis

The court found that at the time the application was instituted, both the respondent and the minor child had already relocated to KwaZulu Natal and were no longer ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the South Gauteng High Court. Jurisdiction is determined by residence at the time of institution of proceedings, not by domicile or previous residence. The applicant was notified of the respondent’s relocation prior to proceeding but chose to continue regardless. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and struck the application from the roll. The cost order reflec…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Urgent Applications
• Care And Contact
• Parental Alienation

D.P v B and Another (2024/080548)

D.P v B and Another (2024/080548) [2024] ZAGPJHC 722 (5 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/080548

Judge

Liebenberg AJ

The High Court dismissed an urgent review of interim Children's Court orders in a parenting dispute, finding the absence of a record prevented intervention.

• Parental Alienation
• Interim Care And Contact
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Best Interests Of Child
• Forensic Investigation
• Children S Act Procedure

I.B.F v A.D.K and Another (015928/2023)

I.B.F v A.D.K and Another (015928/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 296 (22 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

015928/2023

Judge

Swanepoel

The High Court confirmed a rule nisi in a child-contact dispute, dismissed a postponement application and an urgent application, and awarded punitive costs.

• Child Abduction
• Parental Alienation
• Costs Order
• Rule Nisi Confirmation
• Therapy And Parental Coordination
• Child-abduction

I.B.F v A.D.K and Another (2023-015928)

I.B.F v A.D.K and Another (2023-015928) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1129 (31 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-015928

Judge

Swanepoel

The court found that the Hague Convention does not apply as Sint Maarten is not a signatory. The paramount consideration is the best interests of the children, as required by the Children’s Act and the Constitution. The evidence demonstrated severe parental alienation, with the applicant enlisting the children as allies against the respondent and exposing them to litigation details, causing emotional harm. The children are settled and happy in South Africa and strongly opposed to returning to Sint Maarten. Returning them would exacerbate their trauma. Both parties have failed the children, bu…

Source excerpt

• Parental Alienation
• Child Abduction
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Hague Convention
• Care And Contact
• Therapy And Parental Coordination