M.T v C.H.S.T (10757/14)
M.T v C.H.S.T (10757/14) [2016] ZAWCHC 27; 2016 (4) SA 193 (WCC) (11 March 2016)
The court found that the plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with directions given under Rule 37(8)—specifically, to facilitate a home visit for the Family Advocate, attend a required consultation, and appear in court when directed—were deliberate and mala fide. The explanations offered by the plaintiff, including claims of the child's distress, alleged bias by the Family Advocate, and illness on the day of the hearing, were found to be unconvincing and inconsistent with her conduct and communications. The court held that directions given under Rule 37(8), especially when agreed to by the…
Source excerpt
- Contempt Of Court
- Divorce Act Section 6
- Children S Act Best Interests
- Rule 37 8 Directions
- Care And Contact
- Maintenance Arrears