03/10/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Best Interests of the Child, Care and Contact, Child Maintenance, Childcare Expert, Children, Children's matters South Africa, Civil contempt South Africa, Contact Rights, Contempt of Court, Costs, Curator Ad Litem, Divorce, Forensic psychologist mandate, Hired Gun Expert, Maintenance, Parental rights and responsibilities, Pendente Lite, Primary Residence, Primary residence dispute, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 orders, Unlawful retention of a child, Urgency, Urgent applications, Variation Rule 43(6) best interests of the child, breach of court order, child abuse allegations, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Contact rights, court-appointed expert, curator ad litem, divorce litigation, DTL v GB, expert bias, family advocate report, family law South Africa, forensic psychologist mandate, Gauteng High Court Johannesburg, hired gun expert, interim care and contact, parental alienation, parental rights and responsibilities, pendente lite order, primary care, primary residence, Rule 43 variation, Rule 43(6), Rule 67A(3), scale C costs, self-help, sheriff enforcement, unlawful retention of a child, Urgent Application Self-Help Never Pays: Unlawful Retention of a Child and the Limits of Rule 43(6) — L.C.E v C.E (2026/226362) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1070 (29 September 2026). Neutral Citation: E v E (2026-226362) ZAGPJHC --- (29 September 2026) The Facts: A Four-Year-Old Caught in the Crossfire of a Brutal Divorce The parties in L.C.E v C.E (2026/226362)… READ MORE