01/11/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Conduct of Childcare Experts, Interlocutory applications, Motion proceedings, Parental Alienation, Parental Rights, Plascon Evans Rule, Procedural Law, Procedure, Referral to trial, Rule 6(5)(g), Sexual Abuse, Sexual Abuse Allegations abuse of process, child contact disputes, Children's Best Interests, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, coaching of child, court as upper guardian, credibility assessment, custody and access, Dispute of Fact, expert evidence family law, expert witness requirements, family advocate report, forensic psychologist report, interlocutory applications, judicial investigation children, motion proceedings, onus of proof family law, Parental Rights, Plascon-Evans rule, referral to trial, room hire principle, Rule 6(5)(g), section 28 best interests, sexual abuse allegations, shared parenting arrangements, South African Family Law, supervised contact, suspension of contact rights, unsubstantiated allegations Unproven Abuse Allegations and Expert Evidence: When Courts Reject Referral to Trial in Child Contact Disputes – C.N v I.G.R (D6383/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 68 (28 October 2025). The Factual Matrix: Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Protracted Litigation The case of C.N v I.G.R (D6383/2024) ZAKZDHC 68 (28 October 2025) presents a troubling factual scenario that will resonate… READ MORE
29/06/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Alienation, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Children's Court, Costs, Divorce, Family Advocate, Joint Decision Making, Maintenance, Parental Alienation, Parental Rights, Rule 43, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Spousal Maintenance, Variation Rule 43(6) B.P.M v J.L.M, best interests of the child, child contact, co-parenting, Colman v Colman, Contact rights, custody variation, divorce litigation, Du Preez v Du Preez, Family Advocate, family advocate report, family law South Africa, forensic psychologist, High Court Limpopo, interim maintenance, Mangena AJ, parental alienation, parenting plans, PAS, Rule 43 Application, Rule 43(6), shared residency, Soller v G, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance, spousal support South Africa, Variation Application, Visser v Visser, ZALMPPHC 96 Parental Alienation, Prolixity and the Best Interests Principle in B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 96 (13 May 2025). Background and Factual Matrix of the Rule 43(6) Dispute The matter before the court in B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) ZALMPPHC 96 (13 May 2025) concerned a Rule 43(6) application brought… READ MORE
29/06/2025 Bertus Preller Divorce, Procedural Law, Recission of Divorce Orders, Urgency costs in urgent divorce application, curator ad litem, divorce settlement dispute, E.E v T.C.E, East Rock Trading case, Family Advocate investigation, family advocate report, family law procedure, fraud in divorce proceedings, Gauteng Division Pretoria, Lindeque v Hirsch case, minor children divorce court, non-disclosure in divorce, non-joinder, Pretoria High Court, procedural fairness, rescinding divorce agreement, rescission of divorce order, rescission under common law, SARS v Hawker Air Services, South African Family Law, Uniform Rules of Court, urgency in divorce, urgent child residency change, urgent divorce application, urgent High Court application, urgent motion divorce, urgent rescission case, ZAGPPHC 492 Urgency Dismissed: Lessons from E.E v T.C.E (113234/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 492 (16 May 2025) on Rescission, Disclosure and Children’s Rights in Divorce Proceedings. The Factual Matrix: A Mother’s Urgent Attempt to Set Aside a Divorce Settlement Agreement This case arose from an urgent application brought by the applicant, E.E, who sought to have… READ MORE
13/07/2024 Bertus Preller Artificial fertilisation, Best Interests of the Child, Child Maintenance, Children, Guardianship, Life Partnerships, Parental Rights, Same Sex Couples 2024 ZAGPJHC 626, A.V and Another v D.C, artificial fertilisation, AV and NZ, best interests of the child principle, Child's Best Interests, children's act, co-parenting, Constitutional Court, Contact rights, custody disputes, DC, family advocate report, Family Law, family law practitioners, guardianship, identity and birth certificate, international travel consent, judicial decision, Legal Framework, legal precedent, maintenance payments, medical aid dispute, Parental Rights, permanent life partner, Section 21, Section 23, Section 40, South African Law, VJV case Case on Same-Sex Couples and Artificial Fertilisation: A.V and Another v D.C and Others (40522/19) [2024] ZAGPJHC 626 (26 June 2024) – Balancing Parental Rights and Child’s Best Interests Introduction In A.V and Another v D.C and Others (40522/19) ZAGPJHC 626 (26 June 2024), the applicants, AV and NZ, and the first respondent, DC, initially believed that certain sections… READ MORE
25/01/2024 Bertus Preller Children, Parental Rights, Relocation 2023 court ruling, best interests of the child, child custody law, Child Relocation, child welfare, child's psychological well-being, court judgment, custody dispute, D.J.H. v A.H, divorce proceedings, Eastern Cape High Court, family advocate report, family law implications, family law judgments, family law precedent, judicial scrutiny, Legal Analysis, legal arguments, legal case review, legal precedent, legal reasoning, Parental Responsibilities, Parental Rights, relocation case study, relocation impact, relocation jurisprudence, relocation opposition, South African Family Law, South African jurisprudence Navigating the Tides of Change: The Intricacies of Child Relocation in D.J.H. v A.H (914/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 139, (12 December 2023). – Rugunanan J. Overview of the D.J.H. v A.H Relocation Dispute In the case D.J.H. v A.H (914/2023) ZAECMKHC 139, the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court grappled with a contentious child… READ MORE
19/01/2024 Bertus Preller Adversarial Legal System, Children, Parental Rights, Relocation Child Custody, child maintenance, child welfare, Child's Best Interests, children's act, Constitutional Rights, court judgement, custodial parent rights, family advocate report, family court decision, Family Law, family law practice, international child relocation, international family law, International Relocation, Johannesburg High Court, landmark ruling, Legal Analysis, legal precedent, MAHOMED AJ, new case on child relocation, non-custodial parent, parent-child relationship, parental consent, Parental Responsibilities, relocation consent, relocation rights, South African legal system, T.R v S.M Shaping the Future of Family Law: A Pivotal South African Case on Child Relocation – T.R v S.M (035901/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 35 (17 January 2024). Facts of the Case Background Parties and Relationship: From 2009 to 2012, T.R (the applicant) and S.M (the respondent) were in a relationship but never married. They had a daughter… READ MORE