J.B v T.D.S (2025/112007) [2025] ZAGPJHC 815 (18 August 2025)

Case Note

Case: J[…] B[…] v T[...] D[...] S[...] — Not stated
Court: High Court of South Africa Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg | Judge: Segal AJ | Case no.: 2025-112007
Dates: Hearing — 29 July 2025; Judgment — 18 August 2025

Reportability

Reportable: Yes

Cases Cited

None.

Legislation Cited

• Children’s Act 38 of 2005; s 18(2)(a); s 18(2)(c); s 18(3).

Rules of Court Cited

• Uniform Rule 6(12)(a).

HEADNOTE

This case involves an urgent application by the mother for an interdict against the father to prevent him from relocating with their two minor children pending further proceedings. The father opposed the application and sought primary residence of the children. The court found that the relocation was not in the best interests of the children, particularly the older child, who had experienced significant trauma. The court ordered that the children remain with the father and established a structured contact arrangement for the mother, emphasizing the need for therapeutic interventions and educational support.

Key Issues

• Whether the father should be permitted to relocate with the children.
• What arrangements should be made for the children's primary residence and contact with the mother.
• The necessity of therapeutic interventions for the children.

Held

• The Respondent is interdicted from relocating to Cape Town or any other province with the minor children (para [37.3.1]).
• Primary residence of the children shall vest with the Respondent (para [37.3.2]).
• The Applicant shall have contact with the children under specified conditions (para [37.3.3]).
• Each party shall pay his/her own costs in respect of Part A of the application (para [37.13]).

THE FACTS

The applicant, the mother, sought an urgent interdict to prevent the respondent, the father, from relocating with their two minor children, M[...] (16 years old) and C[...] (9 years old), to Cape Town. The mother also requested the appointment of a social worker to investigate the children's best interests, educational needs, and therapeutic interventions. The father opposed the application and countered with a request for primary residence of the children and supervised contact for the mother.

The relationship between the parents had deteriorated, particularly following a physical altercation involving the mother and M[...], which led to the children being removed from her care. The father alleged that the mother had mental health issues and a history of substance abuse, while the mother contended that the father was coaching the children against her.

A forensic investigation was conducted, revealing significant concerns regarding the children's well-being and the mother's parenting capabilities. The court noted the urgency of the matter and the need for immediate intervention.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining whether the father should be allowed to relocate with the children and what the appropriate arrangements for their primary residence and contact with the mother should be. Additionally, the court needed to consider the necessity of therapeutic interventions for the children, particularly in light of their emotional and psychological needs.

ANALYSIS

The court emphasized the urgency of the application, noting the alarming circumstances surrounding the children's welfare. The evidence presented indicated that M[...] had experienced significant trauma, including domestic violence and substance abuse in the mother's home. The court found that forcing M[...] to live with or have contact with her mother against her will would not be in her best interests, particularly given her vulnerable emotional state.

The recommendations from the appointed social worker and forensic psychologist highlighted the need for structured therapeutic interventions for both children. The court noted that the proposed relocation to Cape Town lacked a solid plan and would likely destabilize the children further. The father’s claims regarding the children's education were also scrutinized, with the court expressing concern over their academic progress and the potential impact of a relocation.

The court ultimately decided that the children's primary residence should remain with the father, while establishing a structured contact arrangement for the mother, which would be supervised and contingent upon the children's emotional readiness. The court underscored the importance of prioritizing the children's well-being and facilitating their healing process through professional guidance.

ORDER

• The Applicant’s non-compliance with the Rules of Court and the Practice Manual of the Gauteng Division is condoned to the extent that is necessary, and this application is entertained as one of urgency in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(12)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
• The matter is postponed to the opposed roll in the Family Court on 31 March 2026. The Applicant shall enrol the matter for hearing on that date, by taking all such steps as are necessary with the Registrar of the Family Court to secure such enrollment.
• Pending the hearing of Part B of the application, and the matter on 31 March 2026, it is ordered as follows:
• The Respondent is interdicted from relocating to Cape Town or any other province with the minor children, namely M[...] M[...] S[...] and C[...].
• Primary residence of the children shall vest with the Respondent.
• The Applicant shall have contact with the children under specified conditions.
• Each party shall pay his/her own costs in respect of Part A of the application.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

• The best interests of the child standard must be the primary consideration in custody and contact arrangements (Children’s Act 38 of 2005, s 18).
• Urgent applications may be entertained under Uniform Rule 6(12)(a) when circumstances warrant (para [37.1]).

COSTS

Each party shall pay his/her own costs in respect of Part A of the application (para [37.13]).

NOTES

None.