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
J.HG v G.W.H and Another (7147/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 133 (7 May 2025)
Costs judgment after dismissal of an urgent application for temporary safe care of a minor child over the festive period.
H.S.E v H.A.E (3350/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 45 (26 February 2025)
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 The psychologist's report relied upon was outdated and did not address the children's views, which are statutorily required.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
J.D.R v L.D.R (13283/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 21 (20 February 2025)
The court dismissed a contempt application in a child-relocation dispute and varied an interim care order to keep the child in the respondent’s care and school.
P v P (6743/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 174; [2020] 2 All SA 587 (WCC) (19 December 2019)
The court found that Alan failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding his financial position, employment prospects, and arrangements for the children’s schooling and living conditions in Alaska. He did not demonstrate that he could fund regular contact between Ann and the children if they relocated. The expert evidence supporting Alan was found to be insufficiently impartial and did not adequately consider the impact of relocation on the girls or the practicalities of maintaining their relationship with Ann. The court held that Ann had been a 'good enough' parent, and the allegations of n…
Source excerpt
S.H v S.A.R (3450/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 19 (8 May 2018)
The court found that the respondent's circumstances had deteriorated, with loss of employment, unstable housing, and the end of her relationship, resulting in diminished ability to provide stability and security for the minor child. Expert reports from the Family Advocate, Advocate Rossi, and Mr Kew supported the applicant's greater capacity to provide for the child's developmental needs. While acknowledging the emotional bond between the child and respondent, the court held that the applicant is currently better positioned to ensure the child's welfare, education, and psychological developme…
Source excerpt
P v P (34959/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 102 (13 May 2016)
The court found that the ongoing conflict between the parents and the evolving circumstances since the original residence order in 2010 necessitate the appointment of a curator ad litem to ensure the child's interests are properly represented in any future litigation. The appointment does not imply variation of the existing order but is a procedural safeguard to give the child a voice and protect his best interests. The court held that the best interests of the child require the appointment of a curator ad litem with broad powers to investigate, report, and act in any proceedings affecting th…
Source excerpt
B v B (3951/2013) [2015] ZAFSHC 74 (16 March 2015)
The court found that the children had consistently expressed a preference to reside with the applicant over a period exceeding a year, as confirmed by multiple independent professionals. The respondent's denial of any issues and her refusal to participate in a full psychological evaluation were weighed against the applicant's evidence and the children's wishes. The court held that the best interests of the children required their wishes to be respected, at least on an interim basis, pending a comprehensive evaluation by an independent psychologist. The status quo was varied to grant the appli…
Source excerpt
G v G (32377/12) [2015] ZAGPJHC 34 (29 January 2015)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application by a mother seeking to relocate with her minor children to Cape Town, finding the move was not in the children’s best interests.
S.N v A.T and Another (7730/2014) [2014] ZAKZDHC 46 (30 October 2014)
A child residence dispute was not decided on affidavit evidence; the High Court referred the matter to trial because of genuine factual disputes.
G.J.U v B.U (183/2013) [2013] ZAECGHC 17 (15 February 2013)
Urgent interim relief concerning relocation and custody of minor children after the mother moved with them to East London.
Explore more
