Background of the Family Dispute
In the matter of D.R.R v S.D.R and Another (8947/2022P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 26 (13 March 2025), heard in the High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg, a complex family dispute unfolded between the applicant, D[…] R[…] R[…], and the first respondent, S[…] D[…] R[…], who remain married but live apart. The couple, parents to two minor children—a boy, S, born on 5 May 2017, and a girl, M, born on 21 September 2021—found themselves at odds over the care and residence of their children following a failed plan to relocate as a family. Initially, both resided in Pietermaritzburg, but the applicant moved to Johannesburg with S in December 2021, intending to secure employment and reunite the family there. The first respondent, however, chose to stay in Pietermaritzburg with M after a pivotal weekend in July 2022, when she suspected the applicant’s continued drug use during a family getaway on the KwaZulu-Natal north coast. This decision marked the end of their plan and sparked a three-year separation of the siblings, with S living in Johannesburg and M remaining in Pietermaritzburg.
The applicant, a graphic designer with a history of severe drug addiction involving substances like benzodiazepine, ‘whoonga’, heroin, and crack cocaine, had been supported by his family, notably his older sister, Ms L[…] G[…], in Johannesburg. The first respondent, holding a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology and a post-graduate diploma in public administration, ran her own healthcare company and lived with her parents. Their volatile relationship, marked by frequent separations and reconciliations, had led to this fractured arrangement, which the applicant sought to resolve by applying for primary care of both children. The first respondent opposed this, prompting an earlier order by Sibiya J on 27 September 2022, under the same case number, referring the matter to trial to determine the children’s custodial arrangements and contact terms, as well as whether S and M should remain separated.
The trial, presided over by Mossop J, commenced on 10 February 2025, with judgement delivered on 13 March 2025. It revealed a tangled web of personal choices, parental capacity, and the emotional toll of separation on the children. The applicant’s move to Johannesburg was partly driven by his mother’s cancer diagnosis and relocation there, yet his failure to secure stable employment for 15 months after the move underscored his reliance on his sister’s support.
The first respondent’s refusal to join him stemmed from unmet conditions—employment and independent housing—that the applicant never fulfilled. This backdrop set the stage for a legal battle where the court, as the upper guardian of minors under South African law, had to prioritise the children’s best interests, guided by the principles in the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 and judicial precedents like Van der Linde v Van der Linde 1996 (3) SA 509 (O), which Mossop J later referenced for its stance on sibling unity. The initial referral to trial under Court Rules highlighted five key issues, but the judgement ultimately hinged on the fundamental question of whether S and M’s separation served their well-being, a question rooted in the family’s fractured dynamics.
The Court’s Stance on Sibling Separation
In the judgement delivered by Mossop J in the case before the High Court, a pivotal issue was whether the minor children, S and M, should continue living apart or be reunited under one roof. The court leaned heavily on the principle that siblings should generally be raised together, a view reinforced by the precedent set in Van der Linde v Van der Linde 1996 (3) SA 509 (O). Mossop J cited this case, noting its assertion that siblings often form a crucial bond during the upheaval of parental separation, providing mutual security against external pressures. The judgement emphasized that separation should only occur if compelling circumstances—like neglect or significant improvement in one child’s situation—justify it. Here, no such circumstances were found, leading the court to reject the status quo of S living in Johannesburg with the applicant and M in Pietermaritzburg with the first respondent.
The consent order proposed by the parties during the trial’s final day, which sought to maintain this separation, was met with firm resistance from Mossop J. He argued that it falsely assumed S’s three-year stay in Johannesburg made reunification impractical, ignoring M’s equal right to a sibling relationship. Drawing on the Family Advocate’s report—despite its outdated nature from September 2022—the court endorsed the recommendation that separating siblings, especially at their tender ages (S nearing eight and M at three-and-a-half), was undesirable. Mossop J underscored that the high court, as the upper guardian of minors, holds wide powers under South African law to prioritise children’s best interests, as articulated in Terblanche v Terblanche 1992 (1) SA 501 (W). This authority allowed him to override the parents’ agreement when it failed to serve S and M’s welfare.
The judgement critiqued the applicant’s focus on S’s apparent stability in Johannesburg, arguing it sidelined M’s needs. Mossop J highlighted the resilience of children, dismissing the notion that relocating S would cause irreparable harm. He envisioned the potential joy of S and M reuniting as outweighing any temporary distress, aligning with the Children’s Act 38 of 2005’s emphasis on holistic well-being. The court’s rejection of the consent order, as supported by ZDE v CE [2024] ZASCA 159, affirmed its duty to interrogate parental agreements, ensuring they align with the children’s interests rather than adult convenience. This stance marked a decisive shift, prioritising sibling unity over logistical or parental preferences, and set the tone for the final order granting primary care of both children to the first respondent.
Evaluating Parental Roles and Responsibilities
Mossop J’s judgement in this High Court matter delved deeply into the contrasting capabilities and motivations of the applicant and the first respondent as parents, ultimately shaping the decision to award primary care of both S and M to the latter. The applicant’s history painted a troubling picture: a trained graphic designer, he struggled to secure consistent employment, remaining jobless from 2016 to 2021 and for 15 months after moving to Johannesburg. His severe drug addiction—spanning benzodiazepine, ‘whoonga’, heroin, and crack cocaine—required two stints in treatment centres, casting doubt on his stability. Testimony revealed he relied heavily on his older sister, Ms L[…] G[…], who funded his lifestyle, S’s schooling, and travel, effectively acting as S’s primary caregiver. Mossop J observed the applicant’s passive demeanor and lack of emotional engagement, suggesting a man more indulged than independent, a view reinforced by his failure to return S to Pietermaritzburg when the family reunification plan collapsed.
In stark contrast, the first respondent emerged as a figure of resilience and competence. With a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and a post-graduate diploma in public administration, she ran her own healthcare company, demonstrating entrepreneurial drive and financial independence. Living with her parents in a home deemed adequate by clinical psychologist Mr Clive Willows, she had been M’s sole caregiver since birth, navigating the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic alone during M’s arrival. Her testimony—unchallenged by cross-examination due to the applicant’s counsel’s strategic pause—revealed a willingness to prioritise her children’s happiness, even agreeing to the flawed consent order to spare S distress. Mossop J found her credible, noting her patience during the applicant’s addiction struggles and her clear, authentic responses under oath.
The court’s evaluation leaned on the Children’s Act 38 of 2005’s best-interests standard, assessing each parent’s capacity to provide structure and emotional support. The applicant’s self-centeredness—evidenced by his refusal to relocate despite remote work options and his minimal effort to bond with M—stood against the first respondent’s proven track record. Mossop J rejected the applicant’s claim of parental alienation by the first respondent, citing her limited access to S as negating such influence. The judgement, informed by President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others [1999] ZACC 11; 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC), accepted her unchallenged evidence as fact, highlighting the applicant’s failure to test her claims. This disparity in parental roles underscored the decision to unify the children under the first respondent, affirming her as the more reliable custodian.
The Role of Expert Evidence in the Decision
Mossop J’s judgement placed significant scrutiny on the expert evidence presented during the trial, revealing its strengths, flaws, and ultimate influence—or lack thereof—on the final outcome. The applicant called two experts: social worker Ms Felecia Buthelezi and clinical psychologist Ms Megan Main-Baillie. Ms Buthelezi’s testimony focused narrowly on the first respondent’s living arrangements, visiting a studio flat and the respondent’s parents’ home, where she described the garden’s trees as ‘scary’—an odd remark that Mossop J found more reflective of her own perceptions than any substantive issue. Her evidence offered little beyond confirming the physical spaces, lacking depth on the children’s welfare or parental dynamics, and thus carried minimal weight in the court’s reasoning.
Ms Main-Baillie, however, was a central figure, producing a 100-page report dated 23 January 2023, recommending that both S and M reside primarily with the applicant. Mossop J dismantled this recommendation with precision. The report’s age—two years old by the trial’s start on 10 February 2025—rendered it outdated, with inaccuracies like claiming both parents were unemployed when both had since secured jobs. Her assertion of the applicant’s drug-free status relied on a single test from August 2022, a leap Mossop J deemed imprudent without recent corroboration. Ms Main-Baillie’s suggestion to uproot M from her mother, despite acknowledging the applicant’s weak bond with her and his potential struggle to raise two children alone, baffled the court. Her reliance on parental alienation as a justification faltered, given the first respondent’s limited contact with S, undermining her credibility further. Mossop J found her unimpressive under questioning, noting her dependence on her report and vague responses when pressed, ultimately dismissing her conclusions as illogical and unhelpful.
The first respondent’s expert, clinical psychologist Mr Clive Willows, took a markedly different approach. With a candid admission that his limited time with the family precluded a firm recommendation, he offered two key insights: the adequacy of the first respondent’s parents’ home and the general desirability of raising siblings together. Mossop J appreciated this restraint, finding it refreshing and valuable despite its brevity. The Family Advocate’s report, alongside a family counsellor’s input, both dated 20 September 2022, also supported reuniting S and M with the first respondent, though their age drew similar criticism to Ms Main-Baillie’s work. Mossop J, guided by ZDE v CE [2024] ZASCA 159, exercised the court’s broad authority under Terblanche v Terblanche 1992 (1) SA 501 (W) to weigh this evidence critically, relying more on trial testimony and legal principles than on dated or flawed expert opinions. The judgement thus highlighted the pitfalls of overreliance on experts, prioritising judicial discretion and current facts in safeguarding the children’s best interests.
Implications for Future Care and Contact Cases (Custody)
The judgement handed down by Mossop J carries profound implications for how custody disputes will be approached in South African courts, setting a benchmark for prioritising children’s best interests over parental agreements or entrenched arrangements. A key takeaway is the court’s unwavering commitment to sibling unity, reinforcing the principle from the Van der Linde case that separation requires exceptional justification. This stance signals to future litigants that maintaining sibling bonds will weigh heavily, potentially discouraging parents from leveraging prolonged separation as a bargaining chip, as the applicant attempted here. Courts may now more readily intervene to reunite siblings, even after years apart, provided the move aligns with their overall well-being, challenging the notion that stability in one location trumps familial connection.
Another significant implication lies in the court’s treatment of parental consent orders, as seen in its rejection of the agreement proposed mid-trial. Drawing on the ZDE v CE case, Mossop J affirmed the high court’s role as upper guardian, empowered under Terblanche v Terblanche 1992 (1) SA 501 (W) to override deals that fail to serve minors’ interests. This precedent warns parents and legal counsel that negotiated settlements, even if mutually agreed, face rigorous scrutiny, pushing for outcomes rooted in child-centric reasoning rather than adult convenience. It may encourage more thorough pre-trial mediation to align with judicial expectations, reducing the risk of last-minute reversals like the one seen here.
The decision also reshapes the evidential landscape, particularly around expert testimony. The court’s dismissal of Ms Main-Baillie’s outdated and inconsistent report, contrasted with its appreciation for Mr Willows’ candid limitations, suggests a future where expert evidence must be current, robust, and directly relevant to withstand judicial review. Litigants may need to invest in timely, comprehensive assessments, avoiding reliance on stale data or overreaching conclusions, as the President of the Republic of South Africa v SARFU case’s emphasis on unchallenged testimony further elevates the importance of rigorous cross-examination to test claims. This could raise the bar for preparation in custody battles, ensuring only credible evidence influences outcomes.
Furthermore, the judgement underscores parental responsibility and accountability, penalising self-centeredness as exhibited by the applicant. By aligning with the Children’s Act 38 of 2005’s holistic focus, it implies that courts will increasingly assess a parent’s active contribution to their children’s lives—beyond mere presence or intent—favouring those who demonstrate tangible care, like the first respondent. This may deter parents from resting on external support systems, such as extended family, without proving their own capacity, potentially shifting custody dynamics toward more engaged caregivers.
Finally, the no-costs order, referencing cases like F v F 2006 (3) SA 42 (SCA), reflects a nuanced approach to litigation expenses, balancing the pursuit of children’s interests with fairness to parents acting in good faith. Future cases might see courts continue this discretion, avoiding punitive costs unless bad faith is clear, fostering access to justice while discouraging frivolous disputes. Collectively, this ruling strengthens the judiciary’s protective mantle, likely influencing legal strategies, settlement negotiations, and the weight of familial bonds in South Africa’s care and contact jurisprudence for years to come.
Questions and Answers
What legal framework governed the court’s decision on the custody of S and M?
The primary legal framework was the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which prioritises the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in custody matters. Mossop J applied this principle to determine the primary care and contact arrangements for S and M, ensuring their welfare guided the outcome over parental preferences.
How did the court interpret the best interests of the child in this case?
Mossop J interpreted the best interests standard holistically, focusing on the emotional and developmental benefits of keeping S and M together rather than separated across provinces. The court weighed sibling unity, parental capability, and the children’s stability, rejecting arrangements that prioritised one child’s needs over the other’s right to a shared family experience.
Why did the court reject the consent order proposed by the parents?
The court rejected the consent order because it perpetuated the separation of S and M, which Mossop J found contrary to their best interests. Citing the ZDE v CE case, he emphasised the high court’s duty as upper guardian to interrogate agreements, refusing to endorse one that maintained a status quo detrimental to the children’s sibling relationship.
What role did the principle of sibling unity play in the judgement?
Sibling unity was a cornerstone of the decision, with Mossop J relying on the Van der Linde case to argue that siblings should not be separated unless exceptional circumstances, like neglect, exist. The absence of such factors led to the order reuniting S and M under the first respondent’s care.
How did the court’s powers as upper guardian influence the outcome?
As upper guardian of minors, the high court exercised broad powers under the Terblanche v Terblanche case to override the parents’ consent order and determine what served S and M’s best interests. This authority allowed Mossop J to order their reunification despite the applicant’s initial claim and the proposed settlement.
What significance did the lack of cross-examination of the first respondent have?
The absence of cross-examination, as highlighted by the President of the Republic of South Africa v SARFU case, meant the first respondent’s evidence stood unchallenged. Mossop J accepted her testimony as fact, strengthening her position as a credible parent and weakening the applicant’s case, which relied on untested assertions.
How did the court assess the applicant’s claim of parental alienation?
Mossop J dismissed the applicant’s claim of parental alienation by the first respondent, finding it implausible due to her limited contact with S over three years. The judgement rejected Ms Main-Baillie’s assertion, noting the first respondent’s lack of opportunity to influence S against the applicant, thus undermining this as a basis for his custody bid.
What legal precedent guided the court’s view on separating young children from their primary caregiver?
The court drew on the principle from the ZDE v CE case that very young children should not be easily separated from their primary caregiver, applying it to M’s bond with the first respondent. This influenced the decision to limit the applicant’s contact with M to daytime visits until she reaches school-going age.
How did the court handle outdated expert reports in its decision-making?
Mossop J criticised the outdated reports from Ms Main-Baillie and the Family Advocate, both over two years old by trial, for failing to reflect current circumstances. While acknowledging the Family Advocate’s recommendation aligned with sibling unity, he relied more on trial evidence, exercising discretion under the Terblanche v Terblanche case to prioritise fresh facts.
What was the legal basis for granting contact rights to the applicant?
The Children’s Act 38 of 2005 provides for non-custodial parents to maintain contact with their children, which Mossop J balanced with the children’s best interests. The structured contact terms for S and limited daytime visits for M reflected a legal effort to foster the applicant’s relationship while protecting M’s stability with her primary caregiver.
Why did the court award primary care to the first respondent instead of the applicant?
Mossop J awarded primary care to the first respondent based on her proven stability, employment, and role as M’s sole caregiver, contrasted with the applicant’s reliance on his sister and lack of independent provision for S. This decision aligned with the Van der Linde case’s emphasis on proper care over separation.
How did the court justify overriding the applicant’s three-year care of S?
The court justified relocating S by asserting that three years in Johannesburg did not outweigh the long-term benefits of sibling unity, as per the Van der Linde case. Mossop J highlighted children’s resilience and M’s equal rights, finding no compelling reason under the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 to maintain the separation.
What legal reasoning supported the no-costs order in this case?
Mossop J relied on precedents like the F v F case, noting that custody disputes typically avoid costs orders when parents act in perceived good faith for their children’s interests. Balancing this with judicial discretion, he ordered no costs, reflecting fairness despite the applicant’s initial overreach and subsequent retreat.
How did the court address the applicant’s failure to relocate back to Pietermaritzburg?
The judgement, informed by the ZDE v CE case’s focus on parental sacrifice, critiqued the applicant’s choice to stay in Johannesburg despite remote work options, deeming it self-centered. Mossop J saw this as prioritising personal needs over the children’s right to a united family, influencing the custody outcome.
What implications does this case have for the weight of parental agreements in custody disputes?
The ruling, echoing the ZDE v CE case, establishes that parental agreements hold little sway if they conflict with the children’s best interests under the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. Mossop J’s rejection of the consent order signals that courts will prioritise judicial oversight, potentially reshaping how settlements are negotiated in future disputes.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: