L v L (7168/09) [2009] ZAKZPHC 55 (21 September 2009)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAKZPHC 55
|

|

L v L (7168/09) [2009] ZAKZPHC 55 (21 September 2009)

IN THE
KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Case No:
7168/09
R A
L APPLICANT
and
CA D
L RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Govindasamy AJ:
The
Applicant
seeks an order varying an order of this court dated 16 October 2008.
The
variation relates to the time and duration of the contact between the
Applicant and the minor child "C" "L".
The
application is motivated substantially by a report provided by
psychologist Rose Maurer. The Respondent does not object to
contact
between the Applicant and "C". She nevertheless claims
that the Applicant and members of his family behaved
inappropriately
towards her in "C"’s presence, that the Applicant is ill
tempered and that he has not attended joint
counselling. She further
claims that the recommendations made by Rose Maurer are biased. On
these grounds she is of the view
that the Applicant should not be
granted overnight access.
There
was also considerable dispute as to the meaning of paragraph 4 of the
order and whether there has been compliance therewith.
For the
purposes of this judgment I do not intend dealing with the merits of
the submissions in relation to paragraph 4 of the
order.
The
Respondent
agrees in principle that the Applicant can have contact every
alternate weekend with "C". The sole issue therefore
is
whether that contact should be overnight or whether it should be
interrupted in the manner set out in the Respondent’s tender.
The
Applicant has urged me to grant him overnight access so that he may
take the child to his home at Underberg. I am not satisfied
that at
this tender age "C" should travel such long distances. On
the other hand it is clearly in "C"’s
interests that the
bond between herself and the Applicant should be fostered and
nurtured. Accordingly I hold the view that the
Applicant should be
afforded the opportunity to exercise overnight contact with "C"
with the proviso that such contact
should be exercised in Durban.
The
second matter relates to the extent of the contact during weekdays.
The Applicant seeks contact on two week days each week
while the
Respondent tenders contact between 13h00 to 16h00 one day per week.
I
can find no compelling reason
why the extended contact would be harmful to "C". On the
other hand it is important that "C" should maintain
as much
contact with her natural father as is reasonably possible.
Accordingly I make the following order:
Paragraph
2.2 of the order dated 16
th
October 2008 is varied to read as follows:
“
That
the
Respondent
shall be entitled to have contact with the minor child in Durban
every alternate weekend commencing at 15h00 on a Saturday
until 16h00
on Sunday.”
Paragraph 3 of
the order is varied to read as follows:
“
The
Respondent, alternatively his sister, be entitled to collect and
return the child from and to the Applicant’s residence at
the times
stipulated in paragraph 2 of this order.”
The costs of this
application are reserved for determination at the hearing of the
trial.
M GOVINDASAMY
AJ
Date
of Hearing : 17
th
September 2009
Date
of Judgement : 21
st
September 2009
Counsel for
Applicant : Advocate A. Stokes SC
Instructed
by : Tomlinson Mnguni James
Counsel for
Respondent : Advocate ES. Law
Instructed
by : Garlicke & Bousfield Inc.
c/o Venn
Nemeth & Hart