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
L.S.M v T.C.T (3701/2021) [2024] ZAMPMHC 58 (8 November 2024)
The High Court granted a mother leave to relocate her minor child to Mauritius, finding the move bona fide, reasonable, and in the child’s best interests.
U.R v S.B and Others (2024-001357) [2024] ZAGPJHC 55 (25 January 2024)
The court found that both parents had agreed on Redhill School as the preferred choice for their child and had jointly taken steps to secure his enrolment. The applicant’s withdrawal of consent was not supported by the expert reports, which indicated the child could adjust to either school. The court rejected the applicant’s argument that the change would cause undue anxiety, finding no evidence in the reports to support this claim. The first respondent’s actions were not unilateral or unlawful under section 31 of the Children’s Act, as both parents had participated in the decision-making pro…
Source excerpt
A.D.B v B.A.K (15944/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 1 (9 January 2023)
The High Court allowed a mother to relocate with her two-year-old child from Durban to Cape Town for better employment, preserving the father’s contact rights.
R.G.T v M.S.D and Another (87688/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 664 (9 September 2021)
The applicant's right of contact and visitation with the minor child is established both by statute and the settlement agreement, which stipulates that consent for travel outside South Africa must not be unreasonably withheld. The first respondent's refusal to cooperate in the passport application and to grant consent is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the best interests of the child, which are paramount. The respondent's fears regarding abduction are speculative and have been addressed by the existence of an extradition treaty. Maintenance arrears do not justify withholding access.…
Source excerpt
M F v Cummins South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (27028/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 143 (16 April 2020)
The court found that the repeated applications for postponement and leave to appeal by the applicant were not bona fide and constituted a stratagem to delay the finalization of the dispute, to the detriment of the child. The Family Advocate's report, the child's clear and mature wishes, and the arrangements made by the mother for the child's welfare and education in the United States all supported the conclusion that relocation was in the child's best interests. The applicant's consent was not required under the Children's Act, and his objections were found to be unsustainable and inconsidera…
Source excerpt
C C v Z D (10029/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 130 (29 March 2019)
The High Court allowed an urgent application for a father to take his 7-year-old child to the USA for a holiday, finding the mother’s refusal of consent unreasonable.
D v D and Another (1751/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 159 (11 September 2014)
The High Court granted a mother relief to alter her child's surname and to compel passport paperwork, finding the father unreasonably withheld consent.
Celimene v Scholtz (11/10778) [2011] ZAGPJHC 170 (16 November 2011)
The High Court allowed the mother to relocate the child to France, ordering structured contact with the father and monthly maintenance.
Campher v Cushing (978/2009) [2009] ZAECPEHC 11 (21 April 2009)
The court dismissed an application to let a child travel to London with his mother for her cancer treatment, finding the child’s best interests were not shown.
Swart v Vorster NO and Others (1220/2004) [2009] ZAECHC 26 (28 February 2009)
The court found that although the applicant had signed written consent for the adoption, she unequivocally withdrew her consent within the statutory 60-day period by taking her child back into her custody. The social workers erred by not formalising the withdrawal, but the substance of her actions amounted to a de facto withdrawal of consent. Consequently, the adoption order was wrongly granted. However, the court held that even where an adoption order is irregularly obtained, it cannot be set aside unless it is in the best interests of the child. After considering expert reports, the court c…
Source excerpt
Explore more
