047056/2025-ldv 1 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
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
CASE NO: 047056/2025
DATE: 18-09-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3) REVISED.
10
In the matter between
R[…] G[…] Plaintiff
and
M[…] A[…] D[…] Defendant
J U D G M E N T
VON LUDWIG, AJ: It is a heavy burden on a court to have 20
to decide what is best for a minor child when that child's
own parents are unable to do so. It is a responsibility for
which we must be grateful because the parents have turned
to us and said, “help us ”. It is not always an abrogation of
the parents' responsibilities by the parents. It is the
047056/2025-ldv 2 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
parents saying, “I know what I think is best, but it does no t
concur with what the other parent thinks is best ”.
And that is where the court really struggles, is
when you have two good, loving parents and two good,
loving support structures and they are unable to objectively
determine what is best for a child. That does not mean that
a court can get it right. Bear in mind I have never met any
of you and nor will I. I have never met this wonderful little
girl, who is the subject of this application, and nor will I.
So , at least I have the experts who have not spent 10
nearly enough time and the people at the Family Advocate ’s
Office , and the social worker who have done this under time
constraints because the order that required the Family
Advocate to get involved used the word s as a “matter of
urgency ” and obviously the family advocate told the social
worker, urgent . So, they have also had significant pressure
to do their jobs.
As Mr Khan very rightly said, the norm for these
reports is much longer. Even then, anyone in family law will
tell you that even those reports where they do psychometric 20
testing, where they conduct all the various tests that can be
done on children in age- appropriate circumstances, there is
still no objective test as to whether you get it right. But
what I do want us all to remember is there is no objective
test as to whether you get parenting right even when you
047056/2025-ldv 3 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
are in the happiest of families.
It happens. As long as everyone is doing their
best, if I could put those words in bold and go back to what
I said to everybody earlier, do their best and place the child
first. Within the context of that, the first court order had the
benefit of no expert assistance whatsoever, and my learned
sister Van Deventer did her best on the submissions that
were made to her.
The second court order, likewise, had the benefit of
no expert input and referred the matter for expert input. 10
The expert input is now not only in dispute between the
parties, but acknowledged by the C ourt as , (no disrespect
to any of the experts ), but as done under pressure, which
brings with it incompleteness, typing errors, inability to
devote your sole time and attention to it. It needs
someone's sole time and attention.
What it does not need is to drag on forever and
ever and ever in the hope of getting the “ right answer ”,
because there is none. The right answer depends on the
parents learning to respect and deal with each other, the
20
family structures learning to find a way, even if you cannot
respect each other, to deal with each other. In the tenets of
your faith, in the tenets of all faith, come the injunctions to
treat others as you would have them treat you.
It is hard. We live in a very hard world, and when
047056/2025-ldv 4 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
there is a minor child the subject of it all, it is incredibly
hard to take a step back and be the bigger person, but it is
possible. Test yourselves, you will s ee that it is possible
and always put her at the forefront of your mind. A Judge
giving a judgement in a case like this can go on forever.
There are so many cases and so many learned
views drawn from other case law, from facts, but the
overriding fact is that every case is different , on its own
merits, on its own facts, and yet every case is the same
because we all live in one country, one society. We live in 10
a permutation of life where we work five days of the week ,
we have weekends two days of the week. Day is day, night
is night.
You cannot make orders really out of the
parameters of the se things because they are the realities.
People go to their jobs, school hours are school hours,
children go to schools at certain ages. All of those have to
be taken into account and it makes it difficult to try and find
any kind of parity for the parties and stability and balance
for a child, which brings me to another point. We are 20
constrained to always provide a child as best we can with
stability and routine.
However, equally as important is a minor child's
right to have both parents exercise their parental
responsibilities in respect of that child and, quite frankly, as
047056/2025-ldv 5 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
Mr Khan said, in a human world, to be loved by both parents
and to feel that love. Parents have a right to parent their
child and they have a responsibility to parent their child.
They have a right and a responsibility to love their child and
to expose their child to the very best that life can offer,
which includes exposing them to the very best of the other
parent.
One of your parental responsibilities is to foster
and promote the contact with the other parent, to foster and
promote the child's family, extended family and cultural ties.
10
It is a responsibility enshrined in the Children's Act and in
our constitution. All of that being said, and conscious that I
could say so much more, I go on to make the following
order.
I do find this matter to be urgent and accordingly I do away
with all the requirements and have heard it as an urgent
application. I order that the minor child shall share care
and contact with the parents equally and shall revert to the
two -week, two -week regime as per the Van Deventer order.
20
I order that the parents shall attend post -relationship co-
parenting counselling with the social worker Heidi Reynolds
or, if she is unable to see them and to commence their
therapy within the next 30 days, they shall see anyone
whom she nominates.
047056/2025-ldv 6 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
The costs of that therapy will be paid in terms of
that expert's contractual prerequisites, shared between the
parties pro- rata in accordance with their respective financial
means. The attorneys know how to calculate that and they
will do so. I further order that the parties refer the matter
to either Tanya Kriel, as agreed, or if she is unable to
commence this assessment, ( and I will come to what she is
called upon to assess ), if she is unable to commence this
assessment within the next 30 ordinary calendar days, in
other words by the 18 th or 19 October, either to her nominee 10
or to Antony Townsend or to Dr Marilyn Davis -Shulman.
The parameters of the investigation and
assessment that this nominated party will conduct, is to
determine the best interests of the minor child with specific
regard to what residence, care and contact routine should
be implemented either from the date of her report and
recommendations, (I should not say “ her ” because one of
them is Antony Townsend, let us say “their ” report and or
recommendations ) or from the date of divorce.
The costs of this person shall also be born between 20
the parties , pro- rata, in accordance with their respective
financial means. This report will be concluded by 15 April
2026. If the expert , who is approached to do it , is unable to
undertake to do that, the next expert , being either the
nominee of Tanya Kriel or Antony Townsend or Marilyn
047056/2025-ldv 7 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
Davis- Shulman, shall be approached on the same terms.
They will have all the powers that they have in their
usual mandates when they accept an assessment and
investigation and evaluation of this nature, namely if they
deem it appropriate to conduct psychometric testing through
an alternative psychometrist and to make whatever
recommendations are in the best interest of the minor child
they deem appropriate. It is for this reason that we have
agreed on and or the court has ordered particular
specialists.
10
Penultimately I order that in the conduct of their
divorce the parties shall adhere to the rules of court and the
directives with regard to closing pleadings in a divorce
action and bringing the matter to trial readiness within
those time parameters and expeditiously so that this minor
child's future can be adjudicated upon once and for all.
As regards costs, cognisant of the fact that two of the parts
of my order will require the parties to spend money, at this
stage I reserve the costs of today's application for the trial
court in the main divorce action.
20
Let me add in a paragraph prior to my costs order ,
as follows. This order shall be served on the Office of the
Family Advocate. The Family Advocate is requested to
suspend their investigation, pending finalisation of the
report of the expert herein . And just in case it does not go
047056/2025-ldv 8 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
without saying, the expert herein is to be provided with all
pleadings, court orders and family advocate and social work
reports in the possession of the parties to date.
Obviously the expert will call for all other
documents that the expert requires. The parties are
expressly ordered to co- operate with that expert. If either
party comes back to court for any kind of a mandamus,
looking for co- operation with an expert, I am sure they will
expect a punitive costs order made against them. I want to
add, forgive me, I want to add, and I am going to have to 10
obviously amend this order.
I think I am creating a rod for the parties back. The
party with whom the minor child is not during those two
weeks shall have telephonic contact with that child for no
more than 10 minutes every day . If the parties are unable
between themselves to sort out a routine as to when this
contact shall take place, that contact shall take place half
an hour before the minor child's bedtime.
Save for the assessments expressly ordered herein
and save for ordinary medical or dental procedures and the
20
continuation of any therapy she may be in at the moment for
any form of anxiety, this child may not be referred, by either
parent , to any other expert outside of this process unless it
is a specific, immediate, urgent recommendation of Kriel ,
Townsend, Davis- Shulman or other person who is
047056/2025-ldv 9 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
conducting that assessment.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
1. I find this matter to be urgent.
2. I order that the minor child shall share care and
contact with the parents equally and shall revert to the
two -week, two -week regime as per the Van Deventer
order. 10
3. I order that the parents shall attend post -
relationship co- parenting counselling with the social
worker Heidi Reynolds or, if she is unable to see them
and to commence their therapy within the next 30
days, they shall see anyone whom she nominates.
4. The costs of that therapy will be paid in terms of
that expert's contractual prerequisites, shared 20
between the parties pro- rata in accordance with their
respective financial means. The attorneys will
calculate that.
5. . I further order that the parties refer the matter to
either Tanya Kriel, as agreed, or if she is unable to
047056/2025-ldv 10 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
commence this assessment within by the 18 th or 19
October, either to her nominee or to Antony Townsend
or to Dr Marilyn Davis -Shulman.
6. The parameters of the investigation and
assessment that this nominated party will conduct, is
to determine the best interests of the minor child with
specific regard to what residence, care and contact
routine should be implemented either from the date of
their report and recommendations, or from the date of
10
divorce.
7. The costs of this person shall be born between the
parties, pro- rata, in accordance with their respective
financial means.
8. This report will be concluded by 15 April 2026. If
the expert, who is approached to do it, is unable to 20
undertake to do that, the next expert, being either the
nominee of Tanya Kriel or Antony Townsend or Marilyn
Davis- Shulman, shall be approached on the same
terms.
9. Such expert will have all the powers that they have
047056/2025-ldv 11 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
in their usual mandates when they accept an
assessment and investigation and evaluation of this
nature, namely if they deem it appropriate to conduct
psychometric testing through an alternative
psychometrist and to make whatever recommendations
are in the best interest of the minor child they deem
appropriate.
10. I order that in the conduct of their divorce the
parties shall adhere to the rules of court and the
10
directives with regard to closing pleadings in a divorce
action and bringing the matter to trial readiness within
those time parameters
11. This order shall be served on the O ffice of the
Family Advocate. The Family Advocate is requested to
suspend their investigation, pending finalisation of the
report of the expert herein .
20
12. The expert herein is to be provided with all
pleadings, court orders and family advocate and social
work reports in the possession of the parties to date .
The expert will call for all other documents that the
expert requires. The parties are ordered to co- operate
with that expert.
047056/2025-ldv 12 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
13. The party with whom the minor child is not during
those two weeks shall have telephonic contact with
that child for no more than 10 minutes every day . If
the parties are unable between themselves to sort out
a routine as to when this contact shall take place, that
contact shall take place half an hour before the minor
child's bedtime.
14. Save for the assessments expressly ordered herein
and save for ordinary medical or dental procedures
10
and the continuation of any therapy she may be in at
the moment for any form of anxiety, this child may not
be referred, by either parent , to any other expert
outside of this process unless it is a specific,
immediate, urgent recommendation of Kriel, Townsend,
Davis- Shulman or other person who is conducting that
assessment.
15. I reserve the costs of today's application for the
trial court in the main divorce action 20
…………………………
VON LUDWIG, AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE : 18 September 2025 ex tempore
047056/2025-ldv 13 JUDGMENT
18-09-2025
02 October transcript received and signed