26/05/2026 Bertus Preller Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, Custody, Economic precarity, Family Advocate, Jurisdiction of convenience, Ordinary residence of child, Primary residence dispute, Psychological vulnerability, Relocation, Section 28 Constitution, Section 29 Children's Act, Unilateral relocation best interests of the child, BLFM v GJM, child relocation Eastern Cape, Contact rights, Coopers v Deutsche Gesellschaft, custody and care, economic precarity, expert evidence family law, Family Advocate recommendation, family law South Africa, FS v JJ, Gauteng Division Johannesburg, High Court jurisdiction children, JS v WF, judicial discretion best interests, jurisdiction of convenience, MV Pasquale Della Gatta, NAN v CN, ordinary residence of child, parental rights and responsibilities, primary residence dispute, psychological vulnerability, relocation dispute, section 20 Children's Act, section 21 Children's Act, section 28(2) Constitution, Section 29 Children's Act, SH v MLH, Wilson J judgment Jurisdiction Is Not a Border Post: Section 29 of the Children’s Act Reconsidered in H.M.M v D.M (2025/140422) [2026] ZAGPJHC 506 (19 May 2026). The Facts: A Relocation, an Expert Report, and a Jurisdictional Challenge The applicant, HMM, and the respondent, DM, were in a relationship for seven years and lived together for much… READ MORE
25/04/2026 Bertus Preller Attorney and client costs, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, constitutional rights of children, Contempt of Court, Costs de bonis propriis, Family Advocate, Lawyer-client alignment, Punitive costs orders activist intervention family law, attorney professional conduct, attorney withdrawal, best interests of the child, child care and contact, child custody disputes, Constitution section 1(c), contempt of court, costs de bonis propriis, Court Order Compliance, Fakie contempt, Family Advocate, family law South Africa, High Court contempt proceedings, High Court parenting disputes, lay assistant family law, Legal Practice Council referral, M.N v J.E, parental responsibilities and rights, parenting litigation, Rule of Law, S v Beyer, social workers, suspended fine, suspended imprisonment, unauthorised legal assistance, Uniform Rule 16(4), urgent child return order, ZAWCHC 189 When Activism Crosses the Line: Contempt, Child Welfare and Attorney Accountability in M.N v J.E and Another (2025/221659) [2026] ZAWCHC 189 (20 April 2026). The Facts: A Child Removed from the Father’s Care, an Urgent Return Order, and the Contempt Sequel In M.N v J.E and Another (2025/221659) ZAWCHC 189 (20 April 2026), Pangarker… READ MORE