S v S (9086/16; 8658/16; 2179/14)
S v S (9086/16; 8658/16; 2179/14) [2017] ZAWCHC 157 (28 June 2017)
The court found that the plaintiff’s litigation was driven by personal animosity and a desire for control, rather than the best interests of the children. The evidence, including expert reports and the facilitator’s directives, overwhelmingly supported the children remaining in the primary care of the defendant at Rooi-Els. The relocation was bona fide, reasonable, and communicated in advance. The plaintiff’s claims for relocation and primary care were dismissed as contrary to the children’s welfare. The court held that punitive costs orders were justified due to the plaintiff’s conduct, whic…
Source excerpt
- Parenting Plan
- Relocation Of Minor Children
- Costs In Child Related Litigation
- Facilitation And Mediation
- Co Parenting
- Psychotherapy Orders