M.V v S.L.R (2025/228547) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1329 (12 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 1329 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## M.V v S.L.R (2025/228547) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1329 (12 December 2025) M.V v S.L.R (2025/228547) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1329 (12 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1329.html sino date 12 December 2025 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy FLYNOTES: FAMILY – Children – Holiday travel – Child’s best interests – Provided safeguards and safety undertakings for beach and pool activities – Holiday constituted an extension of an already familiar relationship and posed no material disruption – Court must balance parental concerns with child’s right to maintain a relationship with both parents and to enjoy enriching experiences – Opposition based largely on instinct and fear of change rather than on evidence that holiday will harm child. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2025-228547 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: NO 12/12/2025 In the matter between: M[…] V[…] Applicant and S[…] L[…] R[…] Respondent Neutral Citation : Delivered: By transmission to the parties via email and uploading onto Case Lines the Judgment is deemed to be delivered. JUDGMENT SENYATSI J: Introduction [1]  This is an urgent application in terms of which the applicant, the biological father of the minor child I[…] E[…] R[…] (“I[...]”), seeks an order authorising I[...] to accompany him and his family on a holiday from 21 to 29 December 2025 to Umhlanga and thereafter to Mount Frere. The applicant also seeks confirmation of the existing contact regime pending the finalisation of a parenting plan. [2]  The respondent, the child’s mother, opposes the application on grounds that the matter is not urgent, that the holiday is too sudden and lengthy for a four-year-old child, and that it is not in the child’s best interests. [3]  At the hearing of the application, I encouraged both counsel Ms Bhabha and Ms Mahamba for their parties to find common ground. They returned at 11h00 and informed that the parties were not able to resolve the dispute. [4]  Having considered the papers, including the founding affidavit, answering affidavit, replying affidavit, and the attached correspondence, I am satisfied that the application is urgent and that the relief sought should be granted. My reasons follow. Urgency [5]  The applicant must show that he cannot obtain substantial redress in the normal course. The holiday is set to commence on 21 December 2025. Time is of the essence. The applicant attempted mediation and engaged the respondent from early November 2025. The respondent’s opposition, though detailed, does not negate the fact that the holiday dates are imminent. If the matter were to proceed on the ordinary roll, the purpose of the application would be rendered academic. I am satisfied that the applicant has established urgency. Best interests of the child [6]  The paramount consideration in all matters concerning a child is the child’s best interests. This is enshrined in section 28 of the Constitution and given effect to in the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. [7]  The applicant has demonstrated a consistent and meaningful involvement in I[...]’s life. He pays maintenance, provides clothing, covers extra-mural costs, and has exercised regular overnight contact every weekend since June 2024. I[...] is familiar and comfortable with the applicant, his wife, her half-sister, and her aunt. The holiday is an extension of this existing relationship. [8]  The respondent’s concerns, while genuinely held, are largely speculative. She fears that eight nights away will be too disruptive for I[...], who is accustomed to four-night separations at most. However, the applicant has provided a detailed itinerary, safety undertakings, and mechanisms for daily contact between I[...] and the respondent. He has also committed to ensuring I[...]’s safety through direct supervision, flotation devices at the beach, and structured communication. [9]  The respondent’s examples of the applicant’s alleged lapses in care – such as collecting I[...] from school without prior notice, missing a church Sunday, or briefly leaving her at a birthday party – are isolated incidents that do not, in my view, establish a pattern of negligence or unfitness. They do not outweigh the benefits of the holiday, which include family bonding, cultural exposure, and recreational enrichment. [10]  The respondent concedes that the existing contact arrangement “has been working for I[...] and us.” She also concedes that the applicant, as father, “does matter” and should have a say in I[...]’s life. These concessions support the applicant’s case. [11]  The holiday is a finite, well-planned event, not a permanent alteration to I[...]’s care regime. The applicant has also sought to preserve the status quo by asking that the existing weekend contact be upheld pending a parenting plan. The need for a Family Advocate or children’s court intervention [12]  The respondent argues that the matter should be referred to a Family Advocate or children’s court. While such processes are valuable for long-term parenting plans, they are not necessary to determine the specific, time-sensitive issue of a December holiday. The court is in a position to assess the child’s best interests on the papers before it. The applicant has appropriately provided for the Family Advocate’s future role in helping the parties draft a parenting plan. Conclusion [13]  I am satisfied that it is in I[...]’s best interests to join her father and his family on the planned holiday. The applicant has established a loving, stable and consistent relationship with I[...], and the holiday presents an opportunity for meaningful family interaction and experience. The safeguards proposed are adequate and reasonable. [14]  The respondent’s opposition, though earnest, is based largely on instinct and fear of change rather than on concrete evidence that the holiday will harm I[...]. In matters of this nature, the court must balance parental concerns with the child’s right to maintain a relationship with both parents and to enjoy enriching experiences. [15]  As to costs, the general rule is that costs follow the result. The applicant has been substantially successful. There is no reason to deviate from the rule. The respondent’s financial circumstances, while noted, do not justify a departure. Order [16]  In the result, the following order is made: (a) The application is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12) and the ordinary time periods and forms of service are dispensed with. (b) The minor child, I[...] E[…] R[…] (ID No: 2[…]), is authorised to accompany the applicant on holiday from 21 December 2025 to 29 December 2025 in Umhlanga, KwaZulu-Natal, and thereafter to Mount Frere in the Eastern Cape. (c) For the purpose of the holiday: (i) The minor child will travel by air from Johannesburg to King Shaka International Airport on 21 December 2025 and return on 29 December 2025 from King Shaka International Airport to OR Tambo International Airport, Johannesburg. (ii) The respondent shall provide the applicant with a certified copy of the minor child’s birth certificate and a certified copy of her own identity document for domestic air travel purposes. (iii) The applicant shall ensure that during the holiday: 1. The minor child is under his direct supervision and control at all times. 2. The minor child wears a flotation device when playing in the ocean or a swimming pool. 3. The minor child has daily access to the respondent via telephone, WhatsApp and/or video call. 4. A video call (Microsoft Teams or Zoom) is facilitated between the minor child and the respondent on Christmas Day. (d) The existing contact regime currently exercised by the applicant shall continue pending the parties entering into a parenting plan endorsed by the Family Advocate, namely: (i) The applicant shall have sleepover contact from Friday afternoon until Monday morning each week, including over long weekends. (ii) The applicant shall collect the minor child from school on Friday afternoons and return her to school on Monday mornings, or as per the school days before and after long weekends. (e) The respondent shall pay the costs of this application on a party and party scale B. ML SENYATSI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG DATE APPLICATION HEARD : 12 December 2025 DATE JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN : 12 December 2025 APPEARANCES Counsel for the Applicant: Advocate B Bhabha Instructed by: Clarke Attorneys Inc Counsel for the Second Respondent:   Advocate Z Mahamba Instructed by: Gilfillan Du Plessis Incorporated sino noindex make_database footer start