About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPJHC 513
|
|
L: L and Another v V: N (46539/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 513 (16 April 2021)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
DATE:
16/4/2021
Case
no.:
46539/2018
In
the matter between:
L:
L
First Applicant
L:
D
Second Applicant
and
V:
N
Respondent
JUDGMENT
ROBINSON
AJ:
[1]
In this matter the first and second
applicants seek that full parental responsibilities and rights
pertaining to the care, contact,
guardianship and maintenance of the
minor child E[....] V[....] be granted to them in terms of sections
23 and 26 of the Children’s
Act 38 of 2005 and that the
respondent’s parental rights pertaining to care and
guardianship be terminated in terms of section
28 of the Children’s
Act, subject to certain exceptions. A regime to regulate the manner
in which respondent is to have access
to the minor child is also
proposed.
[2]
When the matter was first called before me
on Monday 12 April 2021, I requested both counsel to interact with
Mrs Labuschagne, the
social worker and, to the extent possible, to
agree the terms of a proposed draft order. I was concerned in
particular to ensure
that I was in possession of all relevant facts
concerning the well-being of the child, considering that some
considerable time
has passed between the first report of the social
worker and the bringing of this application.
[3]
I am indebted to both counsel and Mrs
Labuschagne for their assistance. During the hearing of this
application on 15 April 2021,
Mrs Labuschagne was present throughout
and was able to confirm to me that:
[3.1]
The minor child is in a secure and stable
environment with both the applicants, the second applicant not being
her natural father.
Having been in his care since her infancy, she
has formed a secure bond with the second applicant. The second
applicant cares for
her as if she is his own daughter.
[3.2]
Both parties are in agreement that there is
no reason not to believe that the second applicant is a loving and
beneficial father
to the minor child, a view supported by Mrs
Labuschagne.
[3.3]
At the same time both parties as well as
Mrs Labuschagne agreed on the importance of the minor child knowing
and establishing a
relationship with her biological father, the
respondent. Whilst the respondent will not be successful in a
complete opposition
to the relief sought, I wish to emphasise the
importance of the fact that he did indeed oppose the application by
which the applicants
seek to place the bulk of guardianship and
parental responsibilities in the hands also of the second applicant.
It is important
that the role of the respondent as the biological
father be acknowledged and it may well in time be significant to his
daughter
that he was seen to fight for her. I therefore emphasise
that no order made in these proceedings by this Court should be read
by
the respondent as a criticism of the fact that he did oppose these
proceedings. To the contrary, his opposition is of beneficial
significance in my view to his daughter and has served the crafting
of an order by consent between the parties such that the
establishment
of his future relationship with his daughter is secured
and encouraged. In this regard I am grateful for the degree of
co-operation
between the parties and trust that it will continue as
such.
[3.4] The proposed
draft order is in the best interests of the child.
[4]
The facts support a finding that the first
and second applicants provide the day-to-day care, support and
stability of the minor
child. They also demonstrate the importance of
the respondent developing his relationship with his daughter. In my
view a case
for the relief in the draft order has been made out.
[5]
In the circumstances I make an order in
terms of the draft provided with this short judgment marked “X”.
R
M ROBINSON
[Acting
Judge of the High
Court,
Gauteng Local
Division,
Johannesburg]
DATES OF HEARING:
15
April
2021
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
16 April 2021
APPEARANCES:
COUNSEL
FOR APPLICANT:
Adv. T Engelbrecht
INSTRUCTED
BY:
Louw Strydom Incorporated
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT: Adv. J Cordier
INSTRUCTED
BY:
Githiri Correira Christie Incorporated