CK v JJS [2024] ZAGPJHC 292

This is an urgent application (brought in two parts) by a mother seeking to relocate to Ballito with her son aged 11.

The applicant and respondent have shared residence of the minor child. Professor Gertie Pretorius and the Office of the Family Advocate were requested to conduct investigations and make recommendations regarding the best interest of the minor child. Prof Pretorius’ report states that the child is equally bonded to both his parents and forcing him to leave Johannesburg will negatively impact on his relationship with his father, the respondent. The minor child verbalised to both Professor Pretorius and the Family Counsellor, and to the parties, that he does not want to move and wants everything to remain the same.

Lange AJ stated, inter alia, that electronic contact and alternate weekends do not make up for the lived experience of seeing both parents weekly, and that minor child is entrenched in his school and social circles. She concluded that forcing the minor child to relocate will not be in his best interests, and that there is no proof that the applicant cannot pursue her professional aspirations by remaining in Johannesburg and travelling to Ballito when required. Accordingly, she denied the applicant’s urgent application with no order as to costs.

CK v JJS [2024] ZAGPJHC 292

2024-04-10T09:10:38+00:002024/04/10|Uncategorized|
Go to Top