1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024-098043
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
…………..………….............
F. MARCANDONATOS 18 November 2025
In the matter between:
M. A Applicant
and
M. R Respondent
This Order was prepared and authored by the Acting Judge whose name is
reflected herein and is handed down electronically by circulation to the
Parties/their legal representatives by e- mail and by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on Court Online/CaseLines. The date of the
Judgment is deemed to be 18 November 2025
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
2
MARCANDONATOS AJ:
INTRODUCTION
[1] The parties herein have been cited by their full names. The parties have two
minor children and two major dependent children, each of whom have also
been cited with their full names. In the interests of the children and to protect
their best interests, I deem it appropriate to follow standard practice, to refer to
their children by initials only and in respect of the parties themselves, I shall
interchangeably refer to Applicant as “Mom” and to Respondent as “Dad”.
[2] Mom approached this Court in terms of Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court .
She seeks, in brief, an Order as follows
1:-
2.1. both parties shall retain full parental responsibilities and rights in
respect of the minor children, M (16 years) and T (13 years);
2.2. the implementation of the recommendations made by the jointly
appointed social worker, Tanya Kriel, as per her Report published on 07
August 2025, in terms whereof:-
2.2.1. M shall reside with Dad at his current home and M shall
exercise contact with Mom every alternate weekend from the
Friday after school until the Sunday afternoon;
2.2.2. T’s residence shall be shared equally between Mom and Dad to
be exercised, inter alia, as follows:-
2.2.2.1. T’s residence shall alternate between Mom and Dad
on a weekly basis each Sunday at 17h00;
1 Applicant’s Supplementary Affidavit : Annexure “SA2” thereto, being Applicant’s Amended Draft Order,
CaseLines 004-411 to 004-420
3
2.2.2.2. when T is in either party’s care, such party shall be
responsible for fetching and carrying T to and from
school and extra-mural activities;
2.2.2.3. an equal division of long and short holidays and
provision for birthdays, Mother’s day and Father’s
day;
2.2.3. the appointment of a suitably qualified therapist to conduct
bonding therapy between Mom and M;
2.2.4. M shall attend therapy on a regular basis for purposes of, inter
alia, addressing the concerns highlighted in the Report by
Tanya Kriel;
2.2.5. Mom shall attend therapy on a regular basis for purposes of
addressing the concerns highlighted in Tanya Kriel’s Report;
2.2.6. Dad shall attend therapy on a regular basis for the purposes of
addressing the concerns highlighted in Tanya Kriel’s Report;
2.2.7. a parenting co-ordinator shall be appointed:-
2.2.7.1. Mom and Dad shall jointly attend a parenting course
and recommunication course as recommended by
Tanya Kriel;
2.2.7.2. family therapy takes place with a social worker or
psychologist to assist the restructured unit with the
on-going unresolved challenges experienced by the
family;
2.3. Dad to be liable in respect of the minor children, M and T, as follows:-
4
2.3.1. by making payment of an amount of R19 111.00 per month,
directly to Applicant;
2.3.2. by making payment, in full, of the following expenses directly to
the applicable service providers:-
2.3.2.1. the monthly instalment payable in relation to all
mortgage bonds registered over the immovable
property situated at 3[ …] C[…] Street, J […] Park,
Randburg, Johannesburg (“the former matrimonial
home”);
2.3.2.2. the monthly invoice issued by the City of
Johannesburg in respect of the former matrimonial
home;
2.3.2.3. the monthly insurance premiums payable in relation
to the former matrimonial home , including the house
structure and household contents;
2.3.2.4. the monthly insurance premiums payable in relation
to Kia Sedona motor vehicle driven by Mom;
2.3.2.5. private school fees and expenses incurred in relation
to M and T’s schooling at HeronBridge College,
including the costs of registration fees, levies,
stationery, text books, school uniforms, school
camps, school tours , extra -mural activities and
related expenses;
2.3.2.6. the fees and related expenses incurred in relation M
and T’s swimming, including the cost of all training,
equipment, uniform/kit, competition and gala fees
and ancillary expenses incurred in relation thereto;
5
2.3.2.7. the monthly medical aid premiums payable in
respect of M and T on the existing medical aid or
such other medical aid, which provides the same
benefits;
2.3.2.8. medical and related expenses incurred in relation to
M and T, which expenses are not covered by the
medical aid scheme, including but not necessarily
limited to, medical, dental, orthodontic, optical,
ophthalmological, surgical, psychotherapy,
physiotherapy, dermatological, pharmaceutical and
other medical and related expenses of the minor
children;
2.4. Dad to be liable in respect of the two major dependent children, T (21
years) and A (19 years), as follows:-
2.4.1. by making payment of the tertiary education fees incurred,
including but not limited to, registration fees, residence ( or
accommodation) fees, transport ( including the monthly insurance
premiums payable in respect of the motor vehicles driven by T and
A), travel expenses, stationery, text books and groceries;
2.4.2. the monthly medical premiums payable in respect of T and A
who are both dependents on Dad’s medical aid or such other
medical aid, which provides the same benefits;
2.4.3. medical and related expenses incurred in relation to T and A,
which are not covered Dad ’s medical aid, including but not
necessarily limited to, medical, dental, orthodontic, optical,
ophthalmological, surgical, psychotherapy, physiotherapy,
dermatological, pharmaceutical and other medical and related
expenses of the major dependent children;
6
2.5. Dad shall retain Mom as a dependent on his existing medical aid
scheme and continue to effect payment of the monthly medical aid
premiums;
2.6. Dad to make a first contribution towards Mom ’s legal costs in the
amount of R520 843,19.
[3] Dad, without having formally approached this Court and whilst not having
instituted a Counterclaim, seeks the following relief2:-
3.1. primary residence of M and T and that they exercise contact with Mom,
subject to their willingness to visit and communicate with her, every
alternate weekend from a Friday to a Sunday and have telephonic
contact three days a week;
3.2. M and T to continue with therapy with their respective therapists who
shall facilitate the restoration of a relationship between M and Mom;
3.3. that Mom remain resident in the former common home so that she may
continue her income earning activities, subject to Mom paying the
monthly bond instalments, rates and taxes, utilities, maintenance,
insurance policy, telephone and fibre, television licence and swimming
pool maintenance;
3.4. that Dad shall retain Mom on his medical aid scheme and pay the
monthly premiums in respect thereof;
3.5. Dad shall pay all of the children’s medical related expenses;
3.6. Dad shall pay the minor children’s school fees, school related expenses
and extra-mural activities;
2 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: annexure “SA2”, CaseLines 004-455 to 004-460
7
3.7. Dad shall pay all of the major children’s tuition fees, accommodation
and groceries;
3.8. Dad shall pay the costs of clothing and cell phones for all the children;
3.9. Dad shall make payment of the monthly motor vehicle insurance of the
vehicle used by Mom;
3.10. Dad shall make payment of the monthly vehicle insurance of the vehicle
used by the major children;
3.11. Mom to obtain an iSober device at her cost and cell phone application,
take tests, and shall daily at 18h00, when the children are in her care
share the results with the parenting co- ordinator and in the event that
the test results are positive, that Dad shall be entitled to collect the
minor children from Mom’s care;
3.12. Mom and Dad will retain parental responsibilities and rights in respect of
the minor child, M and T;
3.13. Mom and Dad shall make joint decisions regarding all major aspects
relating to the minor children, including education, medical treatment
and participation in extra-mural and sporting activities;
3.14. the minor children shall primarily reside with Dad , and Mom shall have
contact with the minor children, subject to the bonding therapist
recommending that the contact is in M’s best interests and further
subject to any directive made by the parenting co-ordinator, as follows:-
3.14.1. every alternate weekend from Friday after school until Sunday
evening;
3.14.2. alternate public holidays and long weekends;
8
3.14.3. half of all school holidays, provided that Christmas period and
the entire duration of the Easter long weekend shall alternate
between Mom and Dad each year;
3.14.4. on Mom’s birthday and Mother’s day;
3.14.5. on the minor children’s birthdays, subject thereto that the time
available on the minor children’s birthdays shall be shared
equally;
3.14.6. Mom and Dad shall be entitled to reasonable daily telephonic or
video contact;
3.14.7. M shall continue with therapy with his current therapist,
Michelle Nell, the costs of which shall be paid for by Dad and
shall immediately commence with bonding therapy by a
therapist recommended Dr Lynette Roux;
3.14.8. T shall continue with therapy with her current therapist ,
Christene Laidlaw, the costs of which shall be paid by Dad;
3.14.9. Mom and Dad shall undertake individual therapy with therapists
and/or mental health professional of their own selection and
each party shall be responsible for his/her own costs;
3.15. a parenting co- ordinator shall be appointed by agreement between
Mom and Dad and failing agreement, a parenting co-ordinator has to be
nominated by Dr Lynette Roux;
3.16. the parenting co- ordinator shall be a qualified clinical psychologist,
social worker or family law practitioner of no less than 10 ( ten) years
standing;
9
3.17. the parenting co- ordinator may request either party to undergo hair
follicle tests for the screening of drug or alcohol abuse;
3.18. Mom and Dad shall be responsible for the parenting co- ordinator’s
costs in equal shares.
IN BRIEF ISSUES THAT ARE UNCONTESTED
[4] Mom and Dad were married to each other on 03 April 2004, out of community
of property, excluding the application of the accrual regime.
[5] Four children were born of the marriage, two minors , M (16 years of age) and T
(13 years of age ) and two major dependent children, T (21 years of age ) and A
(19 years of age).
[6] Dad vacated the former matrimonial home on 30 July 2024 and took the two
minor children, M and T, with him and is currently living at the home of his
parents.
[7] Mom instituted divorce proceedings against Dad, on 29 August 2025.
[8] The Pleadings have subsequently closed, however, a Pre- Trial Conference
has not yet been convened.
IN SUMMARY, HOW THE MATTER EVOLVED
[9] On 04 April 2025 Mom instituted this Rule 43 Application.
[10] The relief which Mom originally sought was, in summary, that:-
10.1. Tanya Kriel conduct a forensic assessment regarding the best interests
of M and T, the cost of which the parties would share;
10
10.2. the minor children’s residency shall be shared equally between Mom
and Dad;
10.3. relief pertaining to maintenance as referenced in paragraphs 2.3 and
2.4 above.3
[11] On 02 April 2025, Dad deposed to his Sworn Reply in the Rule 43 Application
stating that the Rule 43 Application, is premature, given that Dad had
accepted the selection of Tanya Kriel , who had already , on or about 19
November 2024, commenced the assessment , having interviewed the family
members and that the parties were awaiting the assessment process to be
finalised and for Tanya Kriel to publish her Report.
[12] Despite that Tanya Kriel’s Report had not been published, Mom launched the
Rule 43 Application and proceeded to enrol the Rule 43 Application for
hearing during the week of 11 August 2025.
[13] On 07 August 2025, Tanya Kriel’s Report was sent to the parties , under
circumstances where the Application was due to be heard on 13 August 2025.
[14] On 08 August 2025, Mom filed a Supplementary Affidavit to which she
appended a draft Order detailing the relief she seeks post the filing of Tanya
Kriel’s Report
4 essentially seeking to implement the recommendations by
Tanya Kriel.
[15] On 13 August 2025, the Court granted an Order , (“the Interim Order”), which
summary Ordered that:-
15.1. the Rule 43 Application is postponed for a virtual hearing before
Marcandonatos AJ, to 28 August 2025 at 11h30;
3 Applicant’s Notice of Motion: CaseLines 004-2 to 004-10
4 Applicant’s Supplementary Affidavit: annexure “SA2”, CaseLines 004-412 to 004-419
11
15.2. pending any Order which may be granted by the above Honourable
Court in the Rule 43 Application which is to be heard on 28 August 2025
that:-
15.2.1. M shall:
15.2.1.1. reside with Dad;
15.2.1.2. continue with therapy with his current therapist,
Michelle Nel, the costs of which shall be paid by
Dad;
15.2.1.3. immediately commence with bonding therapy at a
therapist to be nominated by Dr Lynette Roux, to
restore the bond between Mom and M, which shall
be paid for by Dad;
15.2.2. T shall:-
15.2.2.1. reside equally with Mom and Dad to be exercised in
such a manner that T’s residence shall alternate
between Mom and Dad on a weekly basis which
rotation shall be at 11h00 on a Sunday;
15.2.2.2. continue with therapy with her current therapist,
Christene Laidlaw the cost of which shall be paid by
Dad;
15.3. both Mom and Dad shall undertake individual therapy;
15.4. Dad shall continue to make payment of the monthly expenses in
respect of the children;
12
15.5. the costs of the Rule 43 Application, are costs in the divorce action,
save for the costs occasioned by the postponement , which are
reserved.
[16] On 19 August 2025, Dad deposed to a Supplementary Affidavit , to which he
appended a draft Order detailing the relief he seeks post the fi ling of Tanya
Kriel’s Report.5
COMMON CAUSE ISSUES BETWEEN MOM AND DAD
[17] In summary, the following is common cause, namely that:-
17.1. Mom and Dad shall retain parental responsibilities and rights in respect
of the minor children;
17.2. M shall reside primarily with Dad;
17.3. Mom and Dad shall be entitled to reasonable daily telephonic or video
with the minor children when they are in the care of the other party;
17.4. bonding therapy between Mom and M is to take place;
17.5. M and T are to attend therapy;
17.6. Mom and Dad are to attend individual therapy;
17.7. a parenting co- ordinator shall be appointed who shall be a qualified
clinical psychologist , social worker or family law practitioner with the
appropriate expertise of not less than 10 ( ten) years standing with the
relevant professional council or authority, conversant with working with
children and families in the context of disputed care and contact
matters;
5 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: annexure “SA2”, CaseLines 004-455 to 004-560
13
17.8. in the event of any dispute arising between the parties regarding the
exercise of their parental responsibilities and rights in relation the minor
children as detailed in the Order granted in the Rule 43 Application, in
particular when M should commence exercising contact with Mom, the
parties shall (save in the case of emergency) consult with the parenting co-
ordinator in respect of such dispute;
17.9. the parenting co-ordinator shall attempt to resolve the dispute between
the parties by way of mediation, but if he/she is unable to do so, he/she
shall make a ruling;
17.10. if the mediation fails, the parenting co- ordinator shall provide his/her
recommendations in writing, which recommendations shall be
accompanied by reasons, shall be binding on the parties and shall be
implemented by Mom and Dad, subject to the overriding jurisdiction of
the High Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The parties
shall be bound by and shall implement the parenting co- ordinator’s
written recommendations unless and until a Court of competent
jurisdiction overturns such recommendations;
17.11. the parenting co- ordinator may request either party to undergo hair
follicle test(s) for the screening of drug or alcohol abuse;
17.12. Dad shall pay:-
17.12.1. costs to retain Mom and all the children on Discovery
Health Classic Core Plan medical aid;
17.12.2. excess medical expenses in respect of all the children;
17.12.3. the minor children’s school fees, school books and
uniforms;
14
17.12.4. the minor children’s swimming coaching, gala fees,
subject thereto that Dad has consented to their
participation in such galas and the cost of swimming
costumes and other swimming accessories;
17.12.5. motor vehicle insurance in respect of the vehicle used by
Mom and the vehicle used by the major children;
17.12.6. the cost of clothing in respect of all the children;
17.12.7. the cost of all the children’s cell phone usage.
IN SUMMARY, ISSUES IN DISPUTE
[18] The following issues are in dispute and must be decided by the Court:-
18.1. whether, as sought by Dad:-
18.1.1. the parties shall make joint decisions pertaining to all
major aspects to the minor children;
18.1.2. T shall reside primarily with Mom or whether, as sought
by Mom, T’s residence shall be shared equally between
the parties;
18.1.3. Mom shall have contact with the minor children subject to
(a) in respect of M, the bonding therapist, referred to
hereinabove, having recommended that said contact is in
M’s best interests and (b) in respect of both M and T, any
directive made by the parenting co- ordinator at specific
times or whether as sought by Mom, she shall have
contact to M regardless of the recommendation of the
bonding therapist and the parenting co-ordinator;
15
18.1.4. Mom shall, at her cost, acquire an iSober device and cell
phone application and utilise the same;
18.1.5. his consent to the minor children’s participation in
swimming galas and the cost of swimming costumes and
other swimming accessories is required;
18.2. the identity of M’s therapist;
18.3. the identity of T’s therapist;
18.4. the identity of M’s bonding therapist;
18.5. the mandate and identity of the parenting co-ordinator;
18.6. whether as sought by Mom:-
18.6.1. the parties shall jointly attend a parenting course and
recommunication course as recommended by Tanya Kriel ,
the costs of which shall be shared equally between the
parties;
18.6.2. family therapy to take place with a social worker or
psychologist as nominated by Tanya Kriel to assist the
restructured unit with the on- going unresolved challenges ,
the costs of which shall be shared equally between the
parties;
18.7. insofar as the aspect s of maintenance that are not common cause ,
same includes whether:-
18.7.1. Dad to pay monthly cash maintenance of R19 111.00 in
respect of M and T’s maintenance;
16
18.7.2. Mom alternatively Dad shall pay the expenses in respect of
the former matrimonial home where Mom resides, being the
following:-
18.7.2.1. bond payments due to Investec Bank;
18.7.2.2. the life insurance policy, which is held by
Investec Bank as security for the bond;
18.7.2.3. rates and taxes;
18.7.2.4. water and electricity consumption;
18.7.2.5. monthly maintenance and upkeep of the
former common home;
18.7.2.6. television licence;
18.7.2.7. telephone and fibre;
18.7.2.8. swimming pool chemicals and maintenance;
18.8. whether Dad should pay a contribution towards Mom’s costs and if so,
in what amount;
18.9. the reserved costs of the postponement of the matter on 13 August
2025.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPLICA NT (WRITTEN AND ORAL ) IN
SUMMARY
[19] Tanya Kriel was appointed jointly by Mom and Dad.
17
[20] Tanya Kriel commenced her first interviews on 11 November 2024 and
completed her last interaction analysis on 19 June 2025, spanning over 8
months6 pursuant to which she provided a Report after extensive
investigation, including psychometric testing.7
[21] Tanya Kriel considered and took into account the conclusions and
recommendations of the Report by Ms Maynard, a clinical psychologist , in
terms whereof:-
21.1. the outcome of the psychometric tests by Ms Maynard wherein she
stated in respect of Dad , that in terms of the MCMI, it may be assumed
that Dad is experiencing a severe mental disorder, further professional
observation and in-patient care may be appropriate;8
21.2. Ms Maynard stated that Dad’s narrative indicated a significant
emotional dependence on his parents, which may extend to his
children, whom he sees as his best friends. He has been in a 20 year
marriage with Mom , the relationship having started when he was 19
years of age and his narrative indicates that he may be co- dependent
and he describes himself as very generous and helpful putting
everyone but himself first;9
21.3. the MMPI indicated under emotional disfunction, that Dad’s response
indicates significant emotional distress, more specifically him reporting
feeling sad and unhappy and being dissatisfied with his current life
circumstances, likely complaining of feeling depressed, experiencing
sadness and despair. In particular, he reports being indecisive and
likely experiences incompetence, shame and lacks perseverance and
self-reliance. He reports a history of suicidal/death ideation and/or past
suicide attempts and he is likely at risk for self-harm and is preoccupied
6 Tanya Kriel’s Report, par 3, CaseLines 004-357
7 Tanya Kriel’s Report, CaseLines 004-375 to 004-384
8 Tanya Kriel’s Report, page 21, CaseLines 004-375
9 Tanya Kriel’s Report, page 23, CaseLines 004-377
18
with suicide and death, which is exacerbated by poor impulse control
and substance abuse;10
21.4. the MCMI indicated alcohol use disorder and states that it is likely that
Dad experiences repeated episodes of alcohol abuse. Dad is anxiously
troubled, lonely and socially apprehensive much of the time, he
appears to turn to alcohol to fulfil a number of otherwise difficult to
achieve psychological functions and alcohol may not only serve to
mediate his social anxiety but also may help him relate more
comfortably to others by bolstering his feelings or self -esteem and
wellbeing. For him, alcohol provides a quick dissolution to the psychic
pain he feels by enabling him to blot -out awareness of his loneliness
and troubled existence.
11 Dad also admitted to taking prescription
medication that was not for him and he stated that the took Xanor from
Mom to help him with anxiety;
21.5. during Mom’s interviews with Tanya Kriel, she explained how her
drinking and suicide attempts came about, referencing her father-in-law
being a harsh man and that Dad would not stand up to him when
necessary and when the family travelled to America to visit Dad’s sister,
the father -in-law dictated the entire trip, Mom had a panic attack in
America, was hospitalised and no one visited her, when Mom returned
to her sister -in-law’s home, the paternal grandfather chased her out of
the house, advising her that Dad and the children would remain and
she should make her own way back to South Africa, she had filed for a
divorce 8 years ago upon her return to South Africa, at which time Dad
no longer supported her financially and when he attempted to sell her
motor vehicle and move the children to another school, during which
time Dad had contact with the children every alternate week,
12 Dad tried
to convince her to reconcile and they attended counselling, Dad would
leave his wedding ring in the bathroom, not allow her to touch his
leave his wedding ring in the bathroom, not allow her to touch his
10 Tanya Kriel’s Report, pages 24 and 25, CaseLines 004-378 to 004-379
11 Tanya’s Kriel’s Report: page 28, CaseLines 004-382
12 Tanya Kriel’s Report, par 4.10, CaseLines 004-358
19
phone and in December 2023 , Mom had a breakdown and began
drinking 3 to 4 drinks a night and she had pretended to take an
overdoes as she was overwhelmed, when she then consulted with a
psychiatrist,13 Dad consumed alcohol every evening and he would
become aggressive, during which time Mom did not consume alcohol
and due to severe stress she lost 23kg in a period of two and half
months, Mom’s father-in-law verbally attacked her at a school gala and
he swore at the swimming coach, whereafter Mom applied for a
protection order ,
14 which Mom later withdrew the protection order ,
against her father-in-law;
21.6. Tanya Kriel recommended in regard to Dad, it needs to be noted that
his test results indicates significant psychological distress and
psychopathy, which may significantly impact upon his functioning and
that he may experience significant abandonment anxiety, feeling deeply
betrayed by Mom , and seems to have emotional dependency on the
children concerned and might be triangulating the children, especially
M, into the divorce proceedings. He may further have a permissive
parenting style, which urgently needs to be addressed
15;
21.7. furthermore, Dad is to continue receiving psychotherapy from Ms Katia
Wood to address issues identified in the assessment16;
21.8. in respect of Mom , Tanya Kriel recommended Mom is to continue
receiving psychotherapy from Dr Leslie King, to address the issues
identified in her assessment and that she will need on-going therapy to
address her anxiety and depression, which seems unacknowledged, as
well as conflicting needs in her functioning whereby she is highly goal
directed and focused on achievement while at the same time yearning
for a more peaceful life.
17
13 Tanya Kriel’s Report, paras 4.13 and 4.14, CaseLines 004-358
14 Tanya Kriel’s Report, par 4.32, CaseLines 004-360
15 Tanya Kriel’s Report, page 30, par 11.2, CaseLines 004-384
16 Tanya Kriel’s Report, page 31, Caselines 004-385
16 Tanya Kriel’s Report, page 31, Caselines 004-385
17 Tanya Kriel’s Report: pages 40 and 41, CaseLines 004-394 to 004-395
20
[22] Prior to the publication of Tanya Kriel’s Report, Dad in his Sworn Answer ,
stated unequivocally that he remains willing to abide by Tanya Kriel’s
recommendations once available and to continue to act in a manner that
prioritises the best interests and emotional wellbeing of the children.18
[23] Yet, upon the publication of Tanya Kriel’s Report, he did not merely abide by
the Report and recommendations and instead he called for the Report by Ms
Maynard and deposed to a Supplementary Affidavit where he states that
Tanya Kriel erred in two material aspects namely:-
23.1. she ignored, alternatively paid insufficient attention to what Dad stated
in respect of Mom’s alcohol and substance abuse, suicidal tendencies
and unsuitability as a primary caregiver; and
23.2. she was wrong in finding that Dad is a risk for suicide.
[24] Accordingly, Dad concluded that these errors justified disregard of Tanya
Kriel’s recommendation as well as the shared residency currently applying to
T as wrong and not in her best interests.19
[25] Dad suggested that Tanya Kriel adopted what he calls a “ he said – she said ”
method but in so saying, he disregards Tanya Kriel’s incorporation of Ms
Maynard’s interpretation of the psychometric tests that she performed on both
Mom and Dad and that Tanya Kriel specifically quoted from Ms Maynard’s
Report in this regard and it is therefore not simply a matter of Tanya Kriel
having reported a narrative of what Mom , the children and Dad reported to
her.20
18 Respondent’s Sworn Answer: par 134.2, CaseLines 004-227
19 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: paras 8 and 9, CaseLines 004-431 and 004-432
20 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: par 14, CaseLines 004-436
21
[26] Dad alleges that Tanya Kriel failed to address Mom’s alcohol abuse, overdoes
and suicidal tendencies. 21 This is a stark contrast to the fact that Tanya Kriel
specifically reported that the children confirmed Mom’s alcohol and suicidal
tendencies.22
[27] Moreover, Tanya Kriel reported that addiction is indicated in both Mom and
Dad and that it is necessary that the parties remain sober to be able to resolve
conflict and build trust within the new family environment , which Dad quotes in
his Supplementary Affidavit.23
[28] Dad glibly states that he does not agree that he is a suicide risk or that he has
any preoccupation with suicide and death, yet he ignores what the
psychometric assessment and results reveal ed in this regard. Moreover, Dad
concedes that when his relationship with Mom broke down, it caused him
stress, which made him feel down and depressed, but denies that it made him
feel suicidal.24
[29] In support of his denial, Dad attempts to rely on what he calls a Report from a
Counsellor and psychologist, Katherine Wood,25 despite wherein she explicitly
states: “ no clinical psychometric measures were conducted during the therapeutic
process and therefore, this letter is not fit for forensic purposes”.26
[30] Evidently, Katherine Wood, appreciates the importance of psychometric
measures and a forensic investigation, which is exactly what Ms Maynard and
Tanya Kriel had done. Ms Wood, acknowledged that what she stated, was
merely a letter and not a Report.
21 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: par 22, CaseLines 004-438
22 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: par 23, CaseLines 004-438
23 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: par 27.2, CaseLines 004-440
24 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: par 30.1, CaseLines 004-441
25 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: par 30.2, CaseLines 004-441
26 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: annexure “SA3”, CaseLines 004-463
22
[31] Dad then goes further and places reliance on a letter prepared by his
psychiatrist, Dr Karen Vukovic, 27 wherein she confirms that she has been
seeing Dad since 20 November 2024 and that he is being treated for an
adjustment disorder, with mixed anxiety and depression, after the separation
from Mom. The letter does not explain the nature and extent of what is meant
by “adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety”.
[32] Dr Vukovic, who is a registered psychiatrist, considered Dad’s disorder to be
of a serious enough nature, as to warrant prescription medication, which
includes anti-depressant and sleeping tablets.28
[33] There appears to be no continuity in the treatment provided by Dr Vukovic and
the therapy provided by Ms Wood, in that these two professionals did not
communicate with one another about a treating regime for Dad.
[34] Dr Vukovic states that Dad “is apparently in therapy with Katherine Wood, through
his work employee wellness programme”.
[35] What the nature and extent of his work employee wellness programme is, is
not explained neither by Dr Vukovic nor by Ms Wood, who apparently offers
this employee wellness programme.
[36] The criticism raised by Dad against Tanya Kriel’s Report , that she did not
sufficiently take into account Mom’s alcohol abuse and suicide attempts is
unfounded. However, his motivation for doing so is entirely clear i.e. that he
does not want Mom to have shared residency and he does not wish to
encourage a relationship between M and Mom. In stark contrast, Dad wishes
to be depicted as the perfect parent with no mental disorders, addictions or
suicide adiation. Dad clearly is of the misconstrued view that if he is the
perfect parent, he, by default, becomes a primary resident parent in respect of
both minor children. Once he has primary residence of the minor children, the
issue of his maintenance contributions becomes academic. This is clearly
issue of his maintenance contributions becomes academic. This is clearly
27 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: paras 30.4 and 30.5, CaseLines 004-442
28 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: annexure “SA4”, CaseLines 004-465
23
what Dad believes, if one has regard to the content of his Sworn Reply and
the relief that he claims in terms of the proposed draft Order attached to his
Supplementary Affidavit.
[37] Notably, as already alluded to by Dad, despite being armed with a copy of Ms
Maynard’s Report about him, does not critique Ms Maynard’s Report, does not
disclose Ms Maynard’s Report to the Honourable Court and does not take
issue with the quotations from Ms Maynard’s Report relating to the
psychometric testing, results and Ms Maynard’s interpretation thereof. The
elusive conclusion is that Dad accepts Ms Maynard’s Report and if this is so,
there is no conceivable reason why he can challenge Tanya Kriel’s findings,
which heavily rely on Ms Maynard’s feedback.
[38] It is submitted that Dad’s challenge of Tanya Kriel’s Report must be seen for
what it really is and that it is to gain primary residence of both minor children
and which would absolve him from any maintenance claim made by Mom,
disregarding the best interests of the children, in spite that sufficient
precautionary measures have been put in place in Tanya Kriel’s
recommendations, such as the appointment of a parenting co- ordinator and
on-going therapy.
[39] In addition, Tanya Kriel took account of the views and considerations of the
children. T told Tanya Kriel that the relationship with her mother is
satisfactory and that she enjoys living in the former matrimonial home with her
mother where she has her own bedroom. T did express concerns about her
mother abusing alcohol, but this has been addressed through the
recommendations by Tanya Kriel. T at no stage during her interview as
recorded and detailed by Tanya Kriel, indicated that she did not wish to see
her mother, as M had done and that she does not enjoy the shared residency
arrangement.
[40] The aforegoing ignores and demonstrates that Dad does not prioritise the best
interests of the children, as he professes to do under oath in his Sworn Reply.
24
[41] In the premise, Mom submits that there is no reason to disregard the
recommendations of Tanya Kriel or to implement piecemeal or to add on to
them as Dad has suggested in his draft Order.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT (WRITTEN AND ORAL ) IN
SUMMARY
[42] Dad disputes that Tanya Kriel’s recommendation is correct in that he
contends:-
42.1. Tanya Kriel ignored, alternatively paid insufficient attention to what he
stated in respect of Mom’s alcohol and substance abuse, suicidal
tendencies and instability as primary caregiver;
42.2. Tanya Kriel is wrong in finding that he is a risk for suicide.
[43] In support of his contention, he raised a number of flaws relating to her
reporting, findings and recommendations , including that in spite of her Report
defining her role to conduct an investigation into the best interests of the minor
children, including residency, contact and care and to provide insight into the
history and status perusing all collateral information:-
43.1. her report merely comprises a narrative of what the children and the
parties reported to her;
43.2. the “he said – she said ” method does not assist the Court in making a
judicious finding as to what is in the best interests of the children;
43.3. she ignored, alternatively paid insufficient attention to what Dad stated
in respect of Mom’s alcohol and substance abuse, suicide attempts and
unsuitability as a primary caregiver;
25
43.4. in spite of Tanya Kriel stating that she perused all collateral information
and her having been provided with a copy of Dad’s Sworn Reply herein,
wherein Mom’s alcohol and substance abuse, infidelity and instability
as primary caregiver were clearly raised ,29 as well as the medical
statements and invoices annexed thereto, 30 which also refers to Dad’s
details of Mom’s physical and emotional abuse towards the children
and Dad, Tanya Kriel failed to address Mom’s alcohol abuse, overdoses
and suicidal tendencies;
43.5. Tanya Kriel failed in terms of what the children confirmed about Mom’s
alcohol abuse and suicidal tendencies:-
43.5.1. in relation to what M reported to her on 28 January 2025,
wherein he noted that Mom overdosed medication, consumes
approximately 8 whiskeys in an evening and goes to bed
intoxicated, she has an “ addiction”, she destroyed all her
alcohol but his sister found a bottle of whiskey, she passed out
on 23 November 2023 and that T had taken photos of Mom
having passed out on 01 January 2025’;
43.5.2. in relation to T, reporting to her on 28 January 2025 wherein she
reported that it bothers her and makes her feel uncomfortable
when Mom consumes alcohol, she promised to stop drinking
but still consumes alcohol behind their backs and in relation to
T having reported to her on 31 January 2025, that consuming
alcohol causes Mom to become mean and selfish and whilst
she makes promises to stop consuming alcohol she uses a
flask and she is always intoxicated and miserable without
alcohol; and
43.5.3. in relation to A , having reported to Tanya Kriel on 31 January
2025, that Mom becomes intoxicated and takes medication and
29 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: CaseLines 004-437
30 Respondent’ Supplementary Affidavit: annexure “AA4”, CaseLines 004-267
26
whilst she promises to stop consuming alcohol, she does not
keep her promises.
[44] He therefore states that t he evaluation of Tanya Kriel in support of her
recommendation is unconvincing, lacks substances and indicates that there is
no motivation for her decision and that she failed to address the grave and
serious concerns regarding Mom’s suicide attempts and continued abuse of
alcohol.
[45] The only reference to Mom’s alcohol abuse is in paragraph 15.1 and 15.9 of
her report,31 in which she highlights that the children’s relationship has been
disrupted but it is unclear that the transgressional history of alcohol abuse of
Mom contributed to this and it is important that both Mom and Dad remain
sober to be able to resolve conflict and build trust within the new family
environment.
[46] Instead, Tanya Kriel elects to highlight that Dad was identified as being a risk
for suicide and should be addressed with urgency.
32
[47] In the premises and having regard to the aforegoing, Dad submits that there is
no rational basis upon which Tanya Kriel can recommend that it is in T’s best
interests to reside with Mom 50% of the time and moreover she does not put a
protective network in place to shield T from Mom’s alcohol abuse.
[48] Accordingly, this Court should err on the side of caution and grant an Order as
sought by Dad, which provides for T residing with him and Mom having certain
defined contact with T, subject to the input of a parenting co-ordinator.
[49] Dad submitted that there was an incorrect finding by Tanya Kriel that he is a
risk for suicide recording that:-
31 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: par 27, CaseLines 004-440
32 Tanya’s Kriel’s Report, par 15.5, Caselines 004-407
27
49.1. he suffered, given the breakdown of the marriage, stress and at times
he feels down and depressed but certainly not suicidal;
49.2. Katherine Woods, a psychologist with whom he commenced consulting
on 02 October 2024, had four sessions with her in October 2024 and two
sessions in November 2024 and another session on 16 April 2025 and
obtained a letter from her dated 15 August 2025, 33 wherein she
confirms:-
49.2.1. the dates of the sessions he had with her;
49.2.2. that he approached her for therapy to navigate his separation
and divorce from Mom;
49.2.3. he presented with symptoms relating to stress, anxiety and
trauma;
49.2.4. he did not present with suicidal ideation or intention;
49.2.5. he was committed to sessions and made significant progress in
working through the stress, anxiety and trauma related
symptoms.
[50] In addition Dad consulted with Dr Vukovic since 20 November 2024, and
appended as annexure “ SA4” to his Supplementary Affidavit , a Report from
her dated 19 August 2025 wherein she confirms:-
50.1. Dad is being treated for adjustment disorder and mixed anxiety and
depression after his separation from Mom;
50.2. the medication she prescribed to Dad;
33 Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavit: annexure “SA3”, CaseLines 004-463
28
50.3. Dad is compliant on treatment and a responsible patient.
[51] Dr Vukovic does not find that Dad is suicidal.
[52] In spite of Dad having been informed by both Dr Vukovic and Ms Woods that
he no longer needs to see them as he is doing well emotionally, he has, given
the provisions of the Interim Order, made an appointment to have another
therapy session with Ms Woods on 22 August 2025, he continues to take the
anti-depressants as prescribed by Dr Vukovic and no longer needs sleeping
tablets to assist him in sleeping.
[53] What he mentioned to Ms Maynard regarding suicide and his thought s
thereon on one occasion, 10 years ago, he did not action it and he never tried
to harm himself, which he told Ms Maynard.
[54] Tanya Kriel, however, completely ignores the fact that Mom on several
occasions attempted to commit suicide in consequence of which she had
been hospitalised, which attempts he provides details.
[55] The Reports of Ms Wood and Dr Vukovic clearly evidence that Dad is not a
suicide risk and therefore there is no reason why T cannot be in his primary
care.
[56] Moreover, Tanya Kriel recommends that T is in Dad’s care for 50% of the time
which evidences that even Tanya Kriel is not concerned about Dad being a
suicide risk.
[57] In the premise this Court cannot and should not be guided by Tanya’s Kriel’s
recommendations.
[58] In addition, Dad raises the unaffordability of Tanya Kriel’s recommendations
regarding therapy and states that he simply cannot afford all the therapy as
recommended by Tanya Kriel.
29
[59] Dad further states that albeit common cause that T has thus far been residing
with the parties on a weekly rotational basis, he states that this is not in her
best interests , which situation developed after he moved out of the former
common home and it was allowed to continue pending the outcome of the
Rule 43 Application and there is no protection for T while in the care of Mom
where she continues to abuse alcohol and the only safety mechanism , which
Tanya Kriel incorporated, was that the parenting co- ordinator can direct the
parties to undergo hair follicle test, which does not protect T against her
Mom’s alcoholism.
[60] In respect of M, it is common cause that he should remain in Dad’s primary
care, however, the difficulty arises that Tanya Kriel as well as Mom in her
revised Order, seeks that Mom will commence, with immediate effect, contact
with M on alternate weekends and no provision whatsoever is made for him to
first undergo bonding therapy between himself and Mom to restore the
relationship before weekend contact commences. Moreover, Mom seeks
extended holiday contact between herself and M as well as half of all long and
short school holidays, foreseeably Mom wanting M to spend 50% of the
December 2025/January 2026 holidays in her care, again without any provision
that bonding therapy should first successfully be completed.
[61] Currently the relationship between Mom and M is particularly poor and M has
not spent time with Mom since 2025.
[62] Therefore before there can be any consideration of extended contact between
Mom and M, the bonding therapy must first take place and successfully be
completed.
[63] It should be within the discretion of the therapist who undertakes bonding
therapy to direct and recommend when it will be in M’s best interests that he
resume extended contact with Mom, which can be facilitated through the
parenting co-ordinator.
[64] In respect of therapy for M and T, Dad states that:-
30
64.1. M and T have historically attended therapy, M’s therapist being Ms Nel
and T’s being Ms Laidlaw;
64.2. it is not in the children’s best interests to be exposed to new therapists;
64.3. he proposes that T continues therapy with Ms Laidlaw and M continues
therapy with Ms Nel.
[65] The Interim Order already directs M and T to continue therapy with their
current therapists and there is no logical motivation to change the therapy
regime.
[66] Dad seeks that a parenting co- ordinator be appointed by agreement between
the parties and failing agreement , nominated by Dr Roux , in order to (a)
consult with the bonding therapist s, Ms Nel and Ms Laidlaw, regarding the
minor children’s contact with Mom and to make recommendations as to the
implementation of the contact having due regard to the best interests of the
minor children, (b) develop a comprehensive parenting plan for use by the
parties, (c) attempt to resolve disputes between the parties relating to their
parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the minor children as detailed
in the Order, which he says is in their best interest because:-
66.1. it provides a structure whereby the therapist can give input to the
parenting co-ordinator as to the extent of contact that will be in M and
T’s best interests;
66.2. by allowing the input from the therapist, it will provide a further
mechanism to protect M and T from Mom’s alcohol and suicidal
tendencies;
66.3. the bonding therapist will be able to give input as to what is in M’s best
interests regarding his reunification with Mom;
31
[67] Dad also seeks an Order that Mom , shall at her cost acquire an iSober device
and cell phone application, and shall daily at 18h00, when the children are in
her care, utilise the device and share the results with the parenting co-
ordinator. In the event that the device and/or cell phone application shows
that Mom has consumed alcohol , Dad shall be entitled to collect the minor
children from Mom ’s care, which shall put in a place a mechanism to monitor
Mom’s alcohol abuse and removing of the children if the device shows that
she has consumed alcohol.
[68] Dad seeks that the therapist give input to the parenting co- ordinator to guide
the contact between the minor children and Mom.
[69] Given that the Interim Order already directs therapy for M and T and both
Mom and Dad are to undertake individual therapy, Dad submits that this
therapeutic regime is sufficient as he cannot afford parenting counselling and
family therapy.
APPLICANT’S FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ACCORDING TO APPLICANT
[70] Dad was the sole income earner for the majority of the parties’ marriage,
whilst Mom concentrated her time and energy on raising the children.
Approximately five years ago, Mom began selling raw pet food and breeding
American Bull dogs and Sphinx cats, in an effort to earn an income.
34
[71] Up and until the end of August 2024, Mom used the money earned from the
aforesaid endeavours , to pay for the children’s monthly swimming coaching
and their competition fees. Dad continued to cover all Mom and the children’s
other expenses up and until the of August 2024.35
[72] Mom alleges that her income includes the following:-
34 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 72, CaseLines 004-41
35 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 73, CaseLines 004-41
32
72.1. breeding and selling American Bull dogs in the sum of approximately
R25 000.00, which equates to an average income of R2 083,00 per
month;36
72.2. annual income from Sphinx kitten breeding in an amount of
R57 000.00, which equates to an average income of R 4 750.00 per
month;
37
72.3. approximately R15 000.00 per month through the sale of raw pet
food.38
[73] Mom states that she requires continued residency at the former matrimonial
home at the very least , pendente lite , in order to continue her breeding
business.39
[74] Mom estimates her and the minor children’s monthly expenses to total
R78 793.00,40 which expenses have historically been paid by Dad.
[75] Mom’s personal total monthly expenses is R20 102.00.41
[76] When deducting what Mom earns from her raw food business, in the sum of
R15 000.00 per month, Mom claims a shortfall of R5 073.00 towards spousal
maintenance from Dad.42
[77] Dad’s total monthly contribution payable towards M and T is claimed by Mom
together with Dad’s effective contribution towards her monthly maintenance
amounts to an estimated amount of approximately R58 720.00 per month,
made up as follows:-
36 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 79, CaseLines 004-43
37 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 86, CaseLines 004-45
38 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 93, CaseLines 004-47
39 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 89, CaseLines 004-46
40 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: schedule of expenses, CaseLines 004-48 to 004-51
41 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 99, CaseLines 004-52
42 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 99, CaseLines 004-52 to 004-53
33
77.1. direct expenses on behalf of M and T in the estimated monthly amount
of R34 507.00;
77.2. effective contribution in the amount of R5 102.00 towards Mom’s
monthly expenses; and
77.3. cash for M and T in the amount of R19 111.00 per month.43
RESPONDENT’S FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ACCORDING TO APPLICANT
[78] Whilst Dad alleges that his net monthly salary amounts to R61 892.00 from his
employment at Investec
44, Mom states that this version does not align with his
financial disclosure and bank statements provided and submits that Dad is not
being frank and honest in his disclosure.
[79] On an analysis of Dad’s FNB cheque account, Mom states that Dad’s net
monthly income over the past six months , between October 2024 and March
2025, does not amount to approximately R61 000.00 as alleged by Dad , but
more accurately, at the very least, of R127 739.00.45
[80] In Dad’s Financial Disclosure Form, he reflects his income as follows:-
80.1. gross income for last financial year as shown on IRP5 – R2 101 842.00
80.2. net income for last financial year - R568 634.24
80.3. details of value of any bonuses or other occasional payments received
from employment – R218 633.00;
80.4. estimate of net income from employer for next twelve months –
R1 568 634.24.
43 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: par 103, CaseLines 004-55
44 Respondent’s Sworn Answer: par 98, CaseLines 004-213
45 Applicant’s Heads of Argument: paras 68 and 69, CaseLines 013-35 to 013-36
34
[81] This equates to a monthly income of R130 719.52, excluding any freelance
work conducted by Dad 46 and when taking into account the freelance work,
Dad declares an income of R2 220 523.89, which equates to R185 043.65 per
month.47
APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT’S FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ACCORDING
TO RESPONDENT
[82] Dad states that Mom has a monthly income of between R35 958.00 to
R45 959.00 from her business and in addition she earns money from her
father’s business in which she has interest and in a Close Corporation, but
that it appears that she has deliberately scaled back her efforts in a calculated
attempt to present herself as financially dependent and thereby shift more of
the burden of the family’s financial requirements on to Dad.
48
[83] Dad informs the Court that:-
83.1. he receives a net salary of R61 892.00 from his employment at
Investec;
83.2. over the proceeding twelve month period he earned the following
amounts from freelance work:-
83.2.1. from Media Metrix – R337 760.00, net for the twelve month
period, which is R28 146.66 per month;
83.2.2. Coding Boys – R31 324.75 for the twelve month period, which
is R2 602.90 per month;
83.2.3. from Bires – R490 000.00 for the twelve month period, which is
R35 000.00 per month;
46 Respondent’s Financial Disclosure Form: CaseLines 005-190 to 005-191
47 Respondent’s Financial Disclosure Form: CaseLines 005-195
48 Respondent’s Heads of Argument: paras 79.4 and 79.5: CaseLines 013-97
35
83.3. historically he thus earned on average the sum of R65 749.56 per
month from his freelance work.
[84] However, he alleges that his financial position has deteriorated in that:-
84.1. his freelance work from Bires ended in September 2024 given that Dad
could not take up contract work in Cape Town; and
84.2. from Coding Boys it declined significantly since February 2024, after
Dad’s business partner relocated to New Zealand.
[85] Realistically Dad would thus earn no more than R30 000.00 per month from
the freelance work in future.
[86] Accordingly Dad yields a monthly income of approximately R91 000.00 per
month.
MONTHLY EXPENSES
[87] Mom wants an Order that:-
87.1. Dad shall pay a monthly cash amount of R19 111.00 in respect of M
and T’s maintenance;
87.2. Dad shall pay the expenses in respect of the former matrimonial home;
87.3. however, she does not seem to pursue her alleged monthly shortfall
R5 073,00 towards spousal maintenance from Dad – see paragraph 76
supra.
[88] It is common cause that Dad maintains all four children and he tenders to
continue paying:-
36
88.1. the cost to retain Mom and children on Discovery Health, Classic Core
Plan medical aid;
88.2. excess medical expenses in respect of the children;
88.3. the minor children’s school fees, school books and uniforms;
88.4. the minor children’s swimming coaching, gala fees, subject thereto that
Dad has consented to their participation in such galas and the cost of
swimming costumes and other swimming accessories;
88.5. vehicle insurance in respect the vehicle used by Mom and the vehicle
used by the major children;
88.6. the tuition fees in respect of the major children, student
accommodation, fuel and groceries;
88.7. the cost of clothing in respect the children;
88.8. cost of the children’s cell phone usage.
[89] Dad lists his monthly expenses including those of the children, in a schedule
attached to his Financial Disclosure Form.49
[90] Certain of the items therein relate to the former matrimonial home , which he
has historically paid, but wants to stop, which include:-
90.1. bond payments – R13 268.72;
90.2. rates – R1 328.44;
90.3. water and electricity – R6 523.35;
90.4. householders insurance – R5 215.19;
90.5. homeowner’s insurance – R1 261.81
49 Respondent’s Financial Disclosure Form: schedule attached, CaseLines 005-399
37
90.6. house insurance – R500.00;
90.7. Tv licence – R300.00;
90.8. telephone and ADSL/fibre – R507.33;
90.9. domestic worker – R5 000.00;
90.10. gardener – R1 000.00;
90.11. swimming pool chemicals and maintenance – R500.00
Total R35 404.74
[91] Dad alleges that his monthly expenses , including those of the children,
amount to R138 998.39, however, he includes medical aid premiums of
R8 035.00 and R2 882.00 as part of his expenses. He states that in relation
to these expenses, these are contributions deducted from his gross salary.
COURT’S DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES RELATING TO THE CHILDREN
[92] In the matter of J v J 50, Erasmus J, held that the Court as upper guardian, is
empowered and under a duty to consider and evaluate all relevant facts
placed before it when deciding the issue, which is of paramount importance,
being the best interests of children.
51 The Court referred to the matter of
Terblanche v Terblanche 52 wherein it was stated that when a Court sits as
upper guardian in a custody matter: “… it has extremely wide powers in
establishing what is in the best interests of minor or dependent children. It is not
bound by procedural strictures or by the limitations of the evidence presented or
contentions advanced by the respective parties. It may in fact have recourse to any
source of information of whatever nature, which may be able to assist it in resolving
custody and related disputes”.
53
[93] In the J v J matter, the Court also referred to the decision of AD & DD v DW
& Others (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae; Department for Social
Development as intervening party )54, where the Constitutional Court endorsed
50 2008 (6) SA 30(1)
51 Ibid: par 20
52 1992 (1) SA 501 (W)
53 Ibid: page 504 C
54 2008 (3) SA 183 (CC)
38
the view of the minority in the Supreme Court of Appeal , that the interests of
minors should not be “ held to ransom for the sake of legal niceties ” and
determined that in the case before it, the best interests of the child “ should not
be mechanically sacrificed on the altar of jurisdictional formalism”.55
[94] Furthermore in the matter of P v P 56it was held “… in determining what custody
arrangements will best serve the children’s interests in a case such as the present, a
Court is not looking for the ‘perfect parent’ – doubtless there is no such being. The
Court’s quest is to find which has been called ‘the least detrimental available
alternative, for safeguarding the children’s growth and development’.”57
Tanya Kriel’s Report
[95] In following the reasoning of the above authorities, I will not ignore any facts
and circumstances presented by either party, when considering what is in the
best interests of the children, and I will, in determining what arrangements will
best serve the minor children herein, not be looking for the “ perfect parent” but
rather “ the least detrimental available alternative, for safeguarding the children’s
growth and development”.
[96] After extensive investigation, including psychometric testing by Ms Maynard,
Tanya Kriel provided a Report and made the following recommendations:-
96.1. Mom and Dad shall continue to have full parental responsibilities and
rights with regards the guardianship, care, contact and maintenance of
the minor children;
96.2. T shall remain in a shared residency contact regime and alternate
weekly between Mom and Dad;
55 J v J: 2008 (6) SA 30 (C), par 20
56 2007 (5) SA 94 SCA
57 Par 24 supra.
39
96.3. M shall be in the primary care of Dad, with contact to Mom on alternate
weekends;
96.4. Mom and Dad should attend therapy on a regular basis;
96.5. M is to attend therapy on a regular basis;
96.6. bonding therapy is take place between Mom and M to build their
relationship;
96.7. a comprehensive parenting plan should be developed;
96.8. a parenting co- ordinator should regulate and monitor the family,
navigate decisions and assist with the resolution of conflict;
96.9. hair follicle testing should be performed upon request of the parenting
co-ordinator;
96.10. Mom and Dad must co -parent, a parenting course and
recommunication co- parenting course is recommended and should
commence with both parties attending the course jointly;
96.11. family therapy with a social worker or psychologist is recommended.
[97] I am not persuaded by , I do not agree with and I reject Dad’s submissions as
recorded in this Judgment at paragraphs 42 to 57 supra, that the Report of
Tanya Kriel is, inter alia, flawed, did not take into account material information
pertaining either to Mom or Dad and that her recommendations must therefore
be disregarded and/or that this Court should not be guided by her
recommendations. I furthermore disagree that she simply adopted a “ he said –
she said” approach as submitted by him.
[98] Tanya Kriel is a respected expert in this Division. It is apparent from her
Report, that aside from her various interviews wherein she reported on what
40
was conveyed to her, she, in addition, relied heavily upon the psychometric
testing by Ms Maynard, as conducted in relation to both Mom and Dad and I
am persuaded by the submissions by Mom’s Counsel and as recorded in
paragraphs 20 to 41 supra in this Judgment.
[99] In spite of the issues raised and relating to both Mom and Dad, in respect of
inter alia, alcohol consumption and use and emotional disfunction, Tanya Kriel
nonetheless, in taking these matters into consideration, concluded the
recommendations made by her, including to report that she interviewed each
of the minor children and took into account their respective views, and that T
continues to maintain that she wants the current status to continue and that M
continues to maintain that he wants to reside primarily with Dad.
[100] I am also mindful of what was stated in the matter of B v S58 wherein it was
stated:
“The dicta in these cases are clear and persuasive. They show that no
parental right, privilege or claim as regards access will have substance or
meaning if access will be inimical to the child’s welfare. Only if access is in
the child’s best interests can access be granted. The child’s welfare is thus the
central, constant factor in every instance. On that, access if wholly dependent.
It is thus the child’s right to have access, or to be spared access, that
determines whether contact with the non- custodian parent will be granted.
Essentially, therefore, if one is to speak of an inherent entitlement at all, it is
that of the child, not the parent.”[Emphasis added]
[101] Furthermore, I am, in addition, mindful of the provisions of Section 10 of the
Children’s Act, 38 of 2005 (as amended), in which it is stated:
“Every child that is of such an age, maturity and stage of development has to
be able to participate in any matter concerning that child has the right to
58 1995(3) SA 571(A) at 581 J2582A
41
participate in an appropriate way and views expressed by the child must be
given due consideration.”.
[102] The extent to which I have taken into account the recommendations of Tanya
Kriel, will be apparent from what is stated hereunder in relation to the minor
children and in so doing, what is stated, must not derogate from what I have
stated at paragraphs 92 to 101 above.
T
[103] It is common cause that the position prior to, at the time of and after the
receipt of the Report of Tanya Kriel ( confirmed in the Interim Order) , is that the
residency of T is shared between Mom and Dad.
[104] It is also apparent from the Report of Tanya Kriel , that T has expressed her
desire to want to continue residing equally between her parents.
[105] I see no reason why the interim status should therefore not remain and that
T’s residence should not continue, pendente lite , to be shared between Mom
and Dad.
M
[106] Whilst Tanya Kriel has recommended that M shall be in the primary care of
Dad, with contact to Mom on alternate weekends, taking into account:-
106.1. that Mom and Dad agree that a parenting co-ordinator be appointed;
106.2. that various therapeutic interventions will be taking place;
106.3. the poor relationship between M and Mom and the age of M at the
time of the hearing of this matter (16 years of age),
42
as far as this aspect of Tanya Kriel’s recommendations are concerned, I am of
the view that it would be in M’s best interests, for therapy, including bonding
therapy, to play out and which will hopefully improve the relationship between
M and Mom, whereafter contact will or may be introduced.
[107] In this regard, I emphasise the quote in B v S (supra) and reiterate that the
right to have contact or to be spared contact, is the right of M, not his parents.
General
[108] I am satisfied that there are the following safeguards pertaining to M and T:-
108.1. this is an interim Order, meaning that either party can approach this
Court in terms of Rule 43(6), if needs be;
108.2. as agreed between Mom and Dad, a parenting co- ordinator will be
appointed; and
108.3. as agreed between Mom and Dad, there will be various therapeutic
interventions taking place.
Therapeutic intervention
[109] In my view, it is important for both M and T to continue with therapy and in the
interests of continuity and further unnecessary costs being incurred, that they
each continue with their current therapists, M with Michelle Nel and T with
Christene Laidlaw, the costs of which shall be paid for by Dad.
[110] In particular , M’s therapist should have therapy with him regularly to also
assist him with the possible gambling addiction, as well as his lack of
attachment to Mom and to assist him with the possible destructive view he has
of his Mom.
Therapy for Mom and Dad
43
[111] In light of Tanya Kriel’s finding that co -parenting is failing at present, both
Mom and Dad, must attend individual therapy on a regular basis with a health
professional of their own selection, at his/her own cost.
Bonding Therapy between M and Mom
[112] Whilst I am of the view that the implementation of immediate contact between
M and Mom is presently problematic, it is in the best interests of M to rebuild
his relationship with his mother and the destructive view he has of her by way
of bonding therapy, as having been nominated by Dr L Roux in terms of the
Interim Order, alternatively and in the absence thereof for any reason, by the
parenting co- ordinator to which reference is made hereunder, the costs of
which will be paid for by Dad.
Parenting co-ordinator
[113] Mom and Dad are in agreement as to the appointment of a parenting co-
ordinator, however, neither party has identified a parenting co-ordinator and/or
a mandate for the parenting co-ordinator.
[114] In the absence of Mom and Dad reaching agreement on the identity of a
parenting co-ordinator, same shall be nominated by the Gauteng Family Law
Forum (“ GFLF”) and which parenting co- ordinator shall assist the parties to
develop a comprehensive parenting plan for use by the parties , having due
regard to the best interests of the minor children, to include a mechanism for
the resolving of any dispute between Mom and Dad relating to their parental
responsibilities and rights to the minor children, including any matter referred
to in the Rule 43 Order.
Parenting and recommunication course and family therapy
44
[115] It will benefit Mom and Dad to attend a parenting and recommunication course
as nominated by Tanya Kriel , the costs of which shall be shared equally by
Mom and Dad.
[116] In addition, family therapy is to take place with a social worker or psychologist
as nominated by Tanya Kriel , to assist the restructure unit as to the on- going,
unresolved challenges, the costs of which will be shared by both parties.
COURT’S DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES RELATING TO MAINTENANCE
[117] It is clear from Dad’s Sworn Reply, read with his Financial Disclosure Form
(“FDF”) that:-
117.1. he receives a monthly income from his employment at Investec; and
117.2. he earns additional income from freelance work as well as
discretionary annual bonuses from his employment at Investec.
[118] However, Dad alleges that his financial position has deteriorated given that his
freelance work from Bires and Coding Boys ended and declined.
[119] In Dad’s FDF he reflects his income ( see paragraphs 80 and 81 hereinabove)
totalling R130 719,52, excluding any freelance work conducted by him and
when taking into account the freelance work, Dad declares an income of
R2 220 523.89, which equates to R185 043,65 per month.
[120] Albeit that oral argument was submitted on behalf of Dad that this is not
correct, that there was an error in the computation of Dad’s income and that it
is far less, this does not appear in any documents filed in this matter , either
from Dad’s Sworn Reply, his FDF or his Supplementary Affidavit, that this is
the case. Accordingly, this would be something that would need to be
investigated further for the purposes of the pending divorce proceedings,
however, insofar as this Judgment is concerned, I can only rely on the
disclosures made. I am of the view that as far Dad’s means are concerned, I
am satisfied that he has the capacity to continue to the maintenance
45
requirements, pendente lite , as dealt with and subject to what is stated
hereinbelow.
[121] Mom alleges that her average monthly income is R21 833,00 (supra paragraph
72 above ), whilst Dad states that Mom has a monthly income of between
R35 958.00 to R45 959.00 per month ( supra paragraph 82). It is, however,
debatable as to whether or not Dad’s computation thereof is accurate and, to
repeat, this would need to be investigated further for the purposes of the
pending divorce proceedings. For the purposes of the determination of this
matter, I am persuaded by Mom’s version of her monthly income, however, it
is noted that in respect of her claim that her personal monthly expenses totals
R20 102.00, this amount includes expenses in respect of which she wants
Dad to pay for, totalling an amount of R10 2225.00 ( i.e. comprising of
lodging/bonds- R4 833.00, rates – R443.00, water – R1 000.00, House insurance –
R667.00, medical aid – R2 882,00, excess medicals – R200.00 and medication –
R200.00).
[122] Given that I have determined that:-
122.1. T’s primary residence shall be shared between Mom and Dad;
122.2. M’s primary residence shall remain with Dad and contact between M
and Mom shall not immediately be implemented;
122.3. Dad’s monthly income is approximately R185 043.65 – see
paragraph 81 supra;
122.4. Mom’s estimated monthly income is approximately R21 833.00 – see
paragraph 72 supra;
122.5. the difference in Mom’s personal monthly expenses, after deducting
the expenses she wants Dad to pay for, her total personal monthly
expenses is R 9 877.00, leaving her with a surplus of income, in the
sum of R11 956.00;
46
I am therefore respectfully of the view that:-
122.6. Dad should continue paying for and be responsible for the monthly
expenses pertaining to the former matrimonial home , which he has
historically paid and as identified in paragraph 90 supra;
122.7. Dad should continue paying for the amounts tendered by him as
itemized in paragraph 88 supra , as well as any amplified expenses
as claimed for by Mom and as identified in paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.4
supra; and
122.8. Mom is not entitled to the cash maintenance claimed in respect of T
and M as she too has a duty to contribute to the reasonable and
necessary maintenance requirements in accordance with her means.
APPLICANT’S CLAIM FOR A CONTRIBUTION TO COSTS
[123] Dad states that Mom is not entitled to any contribution towards her legal costs
given that:-
123.1. he does not have the means with which to pay the amount of
R520 843.19 sought, as he uses every cent available to provide for
the children and if the Court granted the order he would be unable to
pay same and would be forced to default;
123.2. he does not have cash funds available;
123.3. the only realisable assets he has , are shares with worth some
R12 060.56;
123.4. Mom seeks a contribution to her costs up to and including the first
day of Trial, which is wholly premature where:-
47
123.4.1. Dad already pays and tenders and continues to pay the
expenses in relation to the children;
123.4.2. the parties are married out of community of property
excluding the accrual and there is thus no proprietary
dispute;
123.4.3. Mom is earning sufficient income to sustain her own
financial requirements;
123.4.4. both parties agree that the joint ownership of the former
matrimonial home should be terminated;
123.4.5. accordingly, there is no issue in dispute and it should not
proceed to trial.
[124] Dad further claims that the parties have not attended mediation and given
what is stated, there is a high likelihood of the matter being resolved.
[125] Dad further disputes the reasonableness of the fees claimed in the Bill of
Costs in that:-
125.1. Mom is claiming historic costs where there is no evidence that the
costs are outstanding or that she has borrowed funds to pay same;
125.2. Mom claims costs in respect of the Rule 43 Application;
125.3. the amounts claimed by Mom are grossly inflated;
125.4. Mom claims costs in respect of expert witnesses where it is not
established that she will require an expert;
125.5. Mom claims costs in respect of a forensic auditor where there is no
proprietary issue in dispute.
48
[126] In support of Mom’s claim for a contribution to her costs , she has annexed to
her Sworn Statement , a Bill of Costs , headed “ Memorandum of Attorney and
Client Fees and Disbursement s – Estimated further such costs of Brand Potgieter
Incorporated – prepared for purposes of assessment of contribution to Plaintiff’s
Costs in terms of Rule 43” (“the Bill of Costs”).59
[127] The Bill of Costs was prepared by Willem K arel Wandrag, employed by Cyril
Moola Attorneys, who deposed to a Confirmatory Affidavit in regard the Bill of
Costs as prepared him. 60 The grand total reflected on the Bill of Costs ,
inclusive of fees, disbursements and VAT is in the sum of R784 799.58.
[128] Mom’s claim for a contribution of R520 843,19 is the difference after deduction
of an amount of R223 956,39 paid by her father to her attorneys.
[129] Whilst Dad’s Counsel addressed legal argument to the Court at the hearing of
the matter in regard to Mom’s claim for a contribution to costs, neither Dad in
his Sworn Reply , Supplementary Affidavit nor in argument, interrogated the
Bill of Costs or raised an objection to any specific items in respect of fees and
disbursements as reflected therein, other than as stated above in this
Judgment. Dad’s failure to interrogate the Bill of Costs , is of no assistance to
the Court.
[130] The legal principles applicable to a claim for a contribution to costs, have been
confirmed in various decisions by our Courts over the years and the essence
of which is the following:-
130.1. a claim for a contribution to costs is a claim sui generis and is an
incident of the duty of support, which spouses owe to each other;
61
59 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: annexure “SS15”, CaseLines 004-162 to 004-168
60 Applicant’s Sworn Statement: annexure “SS16”, CaseLines 004-170 to 004-172
61 Cary v Cary 1999(3) SA 615(C); AF v MF 2019(6) SA 422(WCC) at 428 (e) to (f)
49
130.2. there is the fundamental right to equality and equal protection before
the law and there should be “equality of arms ” for a divorce trial to be
fair;62
130.3. although the rules of the duty of support between spouses are
gender neutral, in light of the traditional child care roles and the
wealth disparity between men and women, the norm has been that it
is generally women who seek relief from the Courts in terms of Rule
43(1)(b);
63
130.4. the purpose of the remedy is therefore to enable the party in the
pending divorce action, who is comparatively speaking, financially
disadvantaged in relation to the other party, to adequately put their
case before Court;
64
130.5. as to what is “ adequate” will depend upon the nature of the litigation,
the scale upon which the husband is litigating and the scale upon
which the wife intends to litigate, with due regard being had to the
husband’s financial position;
130.6. the quantum of the contribution to costs, which a Court may order a
spouse to pay , lies within the discretion of the presiding Judge. In
this regard, the Court should have regard to the circumstances of the
case, the financial position of the parties and the particular issues
involved in the pending litigation in order for the wife to be enabled to
adequately present her case before Court.
65
[131] I will therefore proceed to evaluate and in the exercise of my discretion, make
a determination in regard to Mom’s claim for a contribution to her costs ,
against the backdrop of the aforesaid legal principles and to the particular
issues involved in the pending litigation , it being noteworthy that Dad
62 Eke v Parsons 2016(3) SA 37(CC)
63 AF v MF 2019(6) SA 422 (WCC) par [14]
64 Van Rippen v Van Rippen 1949(4) SA 634 (C)
65 AF v MF 2019(6) SA 422 (WCC) par [14]
50
instructed Senior Counsel in the Rule 43 Application, whilst Mom instructed a
Junior Counsel. It is further noteworthy that nowhere has Dad dealt with and
disclosed, how he is affording his own legal charges ( fees and disbursements),
including, but not limited to, the quantum thereof and/or the cost s of Senior
Counsel. In circumstances where Dad simply denies that Mom is entitled to a
contribution to her legal costs and charges without any specificity and given
the aforegoing, in my view, this flies into the face of the principle “ equality of
arms”.
[132] Without derogating from the aforegoing and given that:-
132.1. Mom is seeking an Order that the costs of this Rule 43 Application
be costs in the Divorce Action, it is clear, in my view, that Mom
cannot be entitled to “double dip”; and
132.2. the historic costs, including fees and disbursements, appears to
have been settled and paid for,
I will therefore disallow the contribution as claimed in the Bill of Costs , as
follows:-
132.3. items 1 to 2 3 of the Bill of Costs pertaining to the historic costs,
including fees ( totalling R54 921.00) and disbursements (totalling
R1 530.00), = R56 451.00;66 and
132.4. items 2 4 to 44 of the Bill of Costs pertaining to this Rule 43
Application, fees ( totalling R 16 427.00) and disbursements ( totalling
R71 300.00), = R87 727.00.
67
[133] Insofar as the balance of the claim of the contribution to future costs as
contained in the Bill of Costs is concerned, I have considered the Bill of Costs
and bearing in mind that this is a claim for an initial contribution to future
66 Applicant’s Sworn Affidavit: Annexure “SS15” CaseLines 004-162 to 004-163
67 Applicant’s Sworn Affidavit: Annexure “SS15” CaseLines 004-163 to 004-164
51
costs, albeit that the Bill of Costs reflects the estimated costs up to and
including the first day of Trial, that Mom is the Plaintiff in the divorce action
and that Mom can bring a further Application( s) for additional contributions to
costs if the need arises, even during the trial , in this context , I have the
following comments in regard the Bill of Costs:-
133.1. it is evident from the papers in the Divorce Action that Mom is
pursuing a claim in terms of Section 7(3) of the Divorce Act and I
therefore disagree with Dad’s argument that because the parties are
married out of community of property , that there are no further
proprietary disputes in the Divorce Action;
133.2. Mom may therefore need to engage with various experts pursuant
thereto, for example a forensic accountant, however, what is not
apparent from the Affidavits filed herein by Mom , is exactly what is in
dispute and therefore precisely, which experts are required and
therefore not enough information was put before me, to properly
consider a contribution in respect of experts;
133.3. whilst it is evident that Mom is pursuing a claim for spousal
maintenance, it is not clear to what extent and in respect of the
principle, quantum and duration she is seeking same, and thus
exactly what is in dispute and therefore her need for expert
testimony in respect thereof is also unclear;
133.4. in respect of the further investigation into Dad and Mom’s income for
the purposes of the Divorce Action, I am of the view that this can be
pursued by way Subpoenae.
[134] In the premise, I will therefore ( in addition to the disallowed items referred to
above in this Judgment), disallow the contributions as claimed in the Bill of Costs,
in respect of items 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 78, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
105, 123, 124, 145, 155, 156, and 157, both in respect of fees ( R15 324.50)
and disbursements (R141 450.00), = R156 774.50.
52
[135] Accordingly, the total of the disallowed items amounts to R300 952.50 – see
paragraphs 132 and 134 supra.
[136] In regard to the remaining items on the Bill of Cost, (items 45 to 62 – fees =
R220 223.00 and disbursements = R362 450.00), excluding fees and
disbursements in respect of the items referred to in paragraph 134 above,
which have been disallowed for the reasons dealt with above, this amounts to
fees = R204 898.50 and disbursements = R221 000.00 totalling R425 898.50.
[137] In my view and for the above reasons , the sum of R 425 898.50 exclusive of
VAT, represents an adequate first contribution to Mom’s future costs in the
pending divorce action.
COSTS
[138] It is common cause that Mom enrolled this matter for hearing before receipt of
Tanya Kriel’s Report.
[139] Immediately once Tanya Kriel’s Report became available, Mom filed a
Supplementary Affidavit in which she sought supplementary relief based upon
the recommendations of Tanya Kriel.
[140] When the matter came before me on 13 August 2025, I granted an Interim
Order in terms whereof the matter was, by agreement, postponed for a virtual
hearing on 28 August 2025.
[141] Further thereto, Dad was afforded the opportunity to file a Supplementary
Affidavit to which he appended an amended draft Order detailing the relief he
seeks, post the receipt of Tanya Kriel’s Report.
[142] Dad is seeking that Mom is to pay the reserved costs of the postponement of
the hearing on 13 August 2025, in circumstances whereby he himself filed a
53
Supplementary Affidavit and is seeking relief in spite of not formally bringing a
Counter-Application.
[143] Part of the relief sought by Dad relates to minor children.
[144] Accordingly, the Report of Tanya Kriel is of assistance to this Court. Dad was
afforded the opportunity to deal with the Report of Tanya Kriel and given that
this matter involves the best interests of both minor and major dependent
children, I see no reason why Mom must be lumbered with the reserved costs
of 13 August 2025.
[145] Both Mom and Dad agree that the costs of the Rule 43 Application are costs in
the divorce action.
[146] In the premise, the costs of 13 August 2025 are included in the Rule 43 costs
as costs in the divorce action.
THE ORDER
[1] After having heard Counsel for Applicant and Counsel for Respondent and
having considered the documents filed on Record, the Court directs that the
following Order is made, pendente lite,:-
1.1. the late filing of Applicant and Respondent’s Supplementary Affidavits
is condoned;
1.2. both parties shall retain full parental responsibilities and rights in
respect of M and T, as envisaged in section 18 (2) of the Children's
Act, 38 of 2005, as amended;
1.3. M shall reside with the Respondent , currently at 3[ …] C[…] Street,
M[…], Johannesburg;
54
1.4. T's residence shall be shared equally between the parties , currently at
3[…] C[…] Street, M […], Johannesburg and currently at 3[…] C[…]
Street, J […] Park, Randburg, Johannesburg, to be exercised as
follows:-
during school terms
1.4.1. T’s residence shall alternate between the Applicant and the
Respondent on a weekly basis each Sunday at 17h00;
1.4.2. when T is in either party’s care, such party shall be responsible
for fetching and carrying T to and from school ( alternatively the
school bus collection point situated in Douglasdale ) and extra-
mural activities;
1.5. during school holidays:
1.5.1. T’s long and short school holidays shall be divided equally in
half and shared between the Applicant and Respondent,
provided that the Christmas period (from 24 to 26 December) and
the entire duration of the Easter long weekend shall alternate
between the Applicant and Respondent each year, T being in
the Applicant’s care for Easter and Christmas during odd years
(commencing in 2025) and in the Respondent’s care for Easter
and Christmas during even years (commencing in 2026);
1.5.2. T’s birthday shall be shared equally between the Applicant and
Respondent each year so that both parents have the
opportunity to celebrate T’s birthday with her each year;
55
1.5.3. T shall spend the whole of Father’s Day from the evening prior
to Father’s Day until the Monday morning following Father’s
Day, with the Respondent, and the whole of the Respondent’s
birthday from the evening prior to his birthday until the morning
of the day following the Respondent’s birthday with the
Respondent each year;
1.5.4. T shall spend the whole of Mother’s Day from the evening prior
to Mother’s Day until the Monday morning following Mother’s
Day with the Applicant, and the whole of the Applicant’s
birthday from the evening prior to her birthday until the morning
of the day following the Applicant’s birthday with the Applicant
each year;
1.6. each party shall have reasonable daily telephone or video contact with
T when she is in the care of the other party;
1.7. bonding therapy between the Applicant and M , to continue and to be
conducted by the therapist as nominated by Dr Lynette Roux and in the
absence thereof for any reason, within 3 ( three) days of the
appointment of the parenting co- ordinator, then, in such event, the
parenting co-ordinator shall nominate a bonding therapist within 5 ( five)
days after the lapse of the aforesaid 3 (three) day period, whereafter the
bonding therapy shall commence as soon as practicable following
his/her nomination, and shall endure for such period as recommended
by the nominated therapist. The bonding therapist shall be mandated
to rebuild the relationship between M and the Applicant and the
destructive view M has of her with the purpose of reunification and
restoration of contact between the Applicant and M and the terms
thereof. The costs of the aforesaid bonding therapy shall be borne and
paid for by the Respondent;
1.8. M shall attend therapy on a regular basis with his current therapist,
Michelle Nel, for purposes of , inter alia , addressing his possible
56
gambling addiction and his lack of attachment to the Applicant and to
assist him with the destructive view he has of the Applicant , the cost of
which shall be paid for by the Respondent;
1.9. T shall attend therapy on a regular basis with her current therapist,
Christene Laidlaw, the cost of which shall be paid for by the
Respondent;
1.10. the Applicant shall attend individual therapy on a regular basis , the
costs of which shall be paid for by the Applicant insofar as the said
costs are not paid for by the medical aid scheme of which the Applicant
is a beneficiary, to address, inter alia, her anxiety and depression, as
well as conflicting needs in her functioning and her alcohol
consumption and usage;
1.11. the Respondent shall attend individual therapy on a regular basis, the
costs of which shall be paid for by the Respondent insofar as the said
costs are not paid for by the medical aid scheme of which the
Respondent is a beneficiary, to address, inter alia, his alcohol use and
consumption, emotional disfunction, his permissive parenting style and
possible suicide tendencies and depression;
1.12. a parenting co-ordinator ("PC") shall be appointed in order to develop a
comprehensive parenting plan for use by the parties, to regulate and
monitor the family, to navigate decisions and to assist with the
resolution of disputes and:
1.12.1. the PC shall be a qualified clinical psychologist or social worker
with the appropriate expertise of not less than 10 ( ten) years
standing with the relevant professional council or authority,
conversant with working with children and families in the
context of disputed care and contact matters;
57
1.12.2. the Gauteng Family Law Forum ("the GFLF") shall upon receipt
of this Order from either party, nominate a suitable person with
availability to accept the appointment as PC (in accordance with
the requirements stipulated in paragraph 1.12.1 above ) to act as PC
and once such person has been nominated by the GFLF, the
parties shall proceed to appoint the person nominated by the
GFLF, as their PC;
1.12.3. the PC shall continue to act until he/she resigns, or the
Applicant and Respondent agree in writing that his/her
appointment is terminated, or his/her appointment is terminated
by an order of Court. If the PC ceases to act as PC for any
reason, he/she shall be substituted by another PC appointed by
the parties by agreement, alternatively and failing agreement
for any reason, by way of nomination by the GFLF in terms of
paragraph 1.12.2 above;
1.12.4. in the event of any dispute arising between the parties
regarding the exercise of their parental rights and
responsibilities in relation to the minor children as detailed in
this Order , including in relation to when and if M should
commence exercising contact with the Applicant, or in relation
to any other issue regarding the minor children's best interests,
which the parties are unable to resolve themselves, the parties
shall (save in the case of urgency ) consult with the PC in respect
of such dispute, who shall in addition be entitled to call for and
receive collateral information from any of the therapists or
health professionals referred to in this Order;
1.12.5. the PC shall attempt to resolve the dispute between the
Applicant and Respondent by way of mediation, but if he/she is
unable to do so, he/she shall make a ruling as detailed in
paragraph 1.12.6 below;
58
1.12.6. in the event that the mediation fails, the PC shall provide his/her
recommendations in writing, which recommendations shall be
accompanied by reasons, shall be binding on the parties and
shall be implemented by the Applicant and Respondent,
subject to the overriding jurisdiction of the High Court or any
other court of competent jurisdiction. The Applicant and
Respondent shall be bound by and shall implement the PC’s
written recommendations unless and until a Court of competent
jurisdiction overturns such recommendations;
1.12.7. the PC may request either party to undergo a hair follicle test/s
for the screening of drug or alcohol abuse;
1.12.8. the Applicant and Respondent shall be responsible for the PC ’s
costs in equal shares;
1.13. the parties shall jointly attend a parenting course and recommunication
course as recommended by Tanya Kriel, the cost of which shall be
shared equally between the parties;.
1.14. family therapy is to take place with a social worker or psychologist as
nominated by Tanya Kriel, to assist the restructured unit with the
ongoing unresolved challenges, the cost of which shall be shared
equally between the parties;
1.15. the Respondent shall be liable for M and T’s maintenance and shall:
1.15.1. effect payment in full of the following expenses, which
payments shall be effected by the Respondent directly to the
applicable service providers:
1.15.1.1. the monthly instalment payable in relation to all
mortgage bonds registered over the immovable
property situated at 3[ …] C[…] Street, J […] Park,
59
Randburg, Johannesburg (“ the former matrimonial
home”);
1.15.1.2. the monthly invoice issued by the City of
Johannesburg in respect of the former matrimonial
home;
1.15.1.3. the monthly insurance premiums payable in relation
to the former matrimonial home , including the house
structure and household contents;
1.15.1.4. the monthly insurance premiums payable in relation
to the Kia Sedona motor vehicle driven by the
Applicant;
1.15.1.5. the private school fees and expenses incurred in
relation to M and T’s schooling at HeronBridge
College and including the cost of registration fees,
levies, stationery, textbooks, school uniforms, school
camps and school tours;
1.15.1.6. the fees and related expenses incurred in relation to
M and T’s swimming, including the cost of all
training, equipment, uniforms/kit, competition and
gala fees and ancillary expenses incurred in relation
thereto;
1.15.1.7. the monthly medical aid premiums payable in
respect of M and T who are both dependents of the
Respondent’s medical aid, and who shall remain
dependents of the Respondent’s existing medical aid
or such other medical aid which provides the same
benefits; and
60
1.15.1.8. the medical and related expenses incurred in
relation to M and T, which expenses are not covered
by the Respondent’s medical aid, including but not
necessarily limited to medical, dental, orthodontic,
optical, ophthalmological, surgical, psychotherapy,
physiotherapy, dermatological, pharmaceutical and
other medical or related expenses of the aforesaid
children;
1.16. the Respondent shall be solely liable for the maintenance of the major
dependent children, T and A and shall effect payment in full of the
following expenses, which payments shall be effected by the
Respondent directly to the applicable service providers:
1.16.1. the tertiary education fees incurred in relation to T and A,
including but not limited to registration fees, residence ( or
accommodation) fees, transport ( including the monthly insurance
premiums payable in respect of the motor vehicles driven by T and A)
and travel expenses, stationery, and textbooks;
1.16.2. the monthly medical aid premiums payable in respect of T and
A who are both dependents of the Respondent’s medical aid,
and who shall remain dependents of the Respondent’s existing
medical aid or such other medical aid which provides the same
benefits;
1.16.3. the medical and related expenses incurred in relation to T and
A, which expenses are not covered by the Respondent’s
medical aid, including but not necessarily limited to medical,
dental, orthodontic, optical, ophthalmological, surgical,
psychotherapy, physiotherapy, dermatological, pharmaceutical
and other medical or related expenses of the aforesaid major
dependent children;
61
1.17. the Respondent shall retain the Applicant as a dependent on his
existing medical aid and shall continue to effect payment of the monthly
medical aid premiums payable in relation thereto;
1.18. the Respondent shall effect payment of a contribution towards the
Applicant’s legal costs up to and including the first day of trial, in the
amount of R 425 898.50, (four hundred and twenty five thousand eight
hundred and ninety eight rand and fifty cents), plus VAT within 60 ordinary
days of this Order;
1.19. costs to be in the divorce action, including the reserved costs of 13
August 2025.
62
______________________________
F. MARCANDONATOS
Acting Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
63
Heard: 13 and 28 August 2025
Judgment: 18 November 2025
Appearances
For Applicant: Advocate F Bezuidenhout
Tel: 072 809 8690
Email: ciska@ciskabez.co.za
Instructed by: Brand Potgieter Inc.
Ref: Ms C Potgieter/TD/M01191
Tel: (011) 781-0169
Email: corien@brandpotgieter.com &
tarryn@brandpotgieter.com
For Respondent: Advocate A De Wet S.C.
Tel: 082651 9400
Email: amandalee@dewetlaw.co.za
Instructed by: Natasha Lynch Attorneys
Ref: NN/DIV/MCCABE
Tel: 072 901 1021
Email: natasha@nlattorneys.co.za