Introduction
In the recent case of V.L v F.N (4760/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 146, delivered on 30 May 2024, the Western Cape High Court was faced with a complex and emotionally charged relocation application. The applicant mother sought the court’s permission to relocate with the parties’ 12-year-old son to Germany, where she had accepted an employment offer. The respondent father opposed the application, arguing that the relocation would not be in the best interests of their child.
This case highlights the difficult decisions courts must make when balancing the competing interests of parents and the paramount consideration of the child’s best interests. It also demonstrates the importance of expert evidence in assisting the court to determine the potential impact of relocation on the child’s well-being and development.
The Facts
V.L. (the mother) and F.N. (the father) were married in South Africa in 2009 and had one child, T, born in October 2011. The parties divorced in 2015, and in terms of the settlement agreement, they shared the care of T on an almost equal basis. In August 2023, V.L. applied for a position with DFS Aviation Services in Germany and was subsequently offered the job. She informed F.N. of her intention to relocate with T to Germany, citing better career prospects and educational opportunities for their son.
V.L. and F.N. initially discussed the practicalities of the proposed relocation, but they were unable to reach an agreement. V.L. appointed a clinical psychologist, Ms. Toni Raphael, to conduct a relocation assessment and provide a recommendation on what would be in T’s best interests. Similarly, F.N. appointed Dr. Astrid Martalas, an expert counselling psychologist, to assess T’s best interests.
The parties exchanged correspondence through their attorneys, with V.L. seeking to address F.N.’s concerns regarding the relocation. She provided detailed information about accommodation, healthcare, schooling, contact arrangements, and her employment in Germany. Despite this, F.N. remained opposed to the relocation, arguing that it would not be in T’s best interests, given his young age, anxiety issues, and the strong bond between father and son.
Legal Issues Raised
The primary legal issue raised in this case was the determination of the best interests of the child in the context of a relocation application. The court had to consider various factors and competing interests to decide whether relocating to Germany with his mother would be in T’s best interests.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, under section 28(2), emphasises that “a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.” This principle is further reinforced by the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which provides a list of factors to be considered when determining the best interests of the child (section 7). The Act also stresses the importance of considering the child’s views, with due regard to their age, maturity, and stage of development (section 10).
In relocation cases, courts have developed specific criteria to assess the best interests of the child. These include:
Whether the application to relocate is made in good faith and is reasonable (B v M [2006] 3 All SA 109 (W)).
The application of the best interests principle (F v F 2006 (3) SA 42 (SCA)).
The child’s views and wishes (section 10 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005).
The court also had to consider the potential impact of relocation on the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent. In the case of Jackson v Jackson 2002 (2) SA 303 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court must consider the reasonableness of the proposed move and the practical and other considerations that need to be taken into account to preserve the relationship between the child and the non-relocating parent.
Furthermore, the court had to assess the expert evidence provided by the clinical psychologist and counselling psychologist to determine the potential impact of the relocation on T’s emotional well-being and development, as well as the measures that could be put in place to mitigate any adverse effects (F v F).
Court’s Analysis and Decision
In analysing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the application for relocation was made in good faith and that V.L.’s motivation for the move was reasonable and genuine. The court then proceeded to consider the best interests of the child, acknowledging that relocation would inevitably involve some loss and adjustment for T.
The court carefully considered the concerns raised by F.N. and his expert, Dr. Martalas, regarding T’s language proficiency, schooling, and the need for certainty before relocation. However, the court found that these concerns could be adequately addressed, and that the German education system’s integration program would accommodate T’s needs.
The court also gave due consideration to T’s expressed wish to relocate with his mother, as conveyed to both experts. While not attaching exclusive weight to the child’s wishes, the court found them to be valuable insights in the decision-making process.
In assessing the expert reports, the court noted that both experts concluded that relocation would be in T’s best interests, albeit with some differences in the recommended timing. The court found Ms. Raphael’s report to be comprehensive and persuasive, indicating that T had a stronger emotional attachment to his mother and that he would be able to maintain his bond with his father through continued contact.
Balancing all relevant factors and legal principles, the court concluded that it would be in T’s best interests to relocate to Germany with his mother. The court ordered that the relocation should occur imminently, allowing sufficient time for T to travel to Germany, orient himself with his new surroundings, and apply for school placement before the start of the German academic year in August 2024.
The court also addressed the issue of urgency, finding that the application was necessary given the parties’ polarised views and the need for a timely resolution in the best interests of the child. The court made provisions for the father to accompany T to Germany, if desired, and for the establishment of a post-relocation parenting plan to ensure continued contact between father and son.
In conclusion, the court granted the application for relocation and dismissed the counter-application, with each party bearing their own costs.
Impact on Future Cases
The decision in V.L v F.N (4760/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 146 is likely to have an impact on future relocation cases in South Africa. The judgment provides valuable guidance on how courts should approach the determination of a child’s best interests in the context of relocation applications.
Firstly, the case reaffirms the importance of considering the child’s views and wishes, in accordance with section 10 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. While the court emphasised that the child’s views are not determinative, they should be given due consideration, taking into account the child’s age, maturity, and stage of development.
Secondly, the judgment highlights the crucial role of expert evidence in relocation cases. The court relied heavily on the reports and recommendations of the clinical psychologist and counselling psychologist in assessing the potential impact of relocation on the child’s well-being and development. This underscores the need for parties to present comprehensive and well-reasoned expert evidence to assist the court in making a determination.
Thirdly, the case demonstrates the court’s willingness to grant relocation applications where it is shown to be in the child’s best interests, even if it may result in some loss or adjustment for the child and the non-relocating parent. The court’s decision to grant the relocation application, despite the father’s objections and concerns, indicates that the best interests principle will take precedence over other considerations.
Furthermore, the judgment provides guidance on how courts should approach the issue of urgency in relocation cases. The court’s finding that the application was necessary and urgent, given the parties’ polarised views and the need for a timely resolution, may encourage parties to seek judicial intervention sooner rather than later in future relocation disputes.
Conclusion
The judgment the complex and emotionally charged nature of relocation cases in family law. The court was faced with the difficult task of balancing the competing interests of the parents while ensuring that the best interests of the child remained the paramount consideration.
The case highlights the importance of a comprehensive and holistic approach to determining a child’s best interests in relocation applications. The court considered a wide range of factors, including the child’s views and wishes, the potential impact on the child’s emotional well-being and development, the reasonableness of the proposed relocation, and the measures that could be put in place to maintain the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent.
Furthermore, the judgment demonstrates the court’s commitment to ensuring that the child’s best interests are protected, even in the face of parental conflict and differing views on what is best for the child. The court’s decision to grant the relocation application, despite the father’s objections, reflects a child-centered approach that prioritises the child’s welfare above all else.
Questions and Answers
Q: What is the primary legal principle that the court must consider in relocation cases involving children? A: The primary legal principle that the court must consider in relocation cases involving children is the best interests of the child, as enshrined in section 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and further elaborated in the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
Q: What are the key factors that the court considers when determining the best interests of the child in relocation cases? A: When determining the best interests of the child in relocation cases, the court considers factors such as the child’s views and wishes (section 10 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005), the potential impact of relocation on the child’s emotional well-being and development, the reasonableness of the proposed relocation (B v M [2006] 3 All SA 109 (W)), and the measures that can be put in place to maintain the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent (Jackson v Jackson 2002 (2) SA 303 (SCA)).
Q: How does the court assess the reasonableness of the proposed relocation in light of the best interests of the child? A: The court assesses the reasonableness of the proposed relocation by considering factors such as the motivation behind the relocation, the potential benefits and opportunities for the child, and the practical feasibility of maintaining the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent (F v F 2006 (3) SA 42 (SCA)).
Q: What role does expert evidence play in assisting the court to determine the best interests of the child in relocation cases? A: Expert evidence, such as reports from clinical psychologists and counselling psychologists, plays a crucial role in assisting the court to assess the potential impact of relocation on the child’s emotional well-being and development. These experts provide valuable insights into the child’s needs and the measures that can be put in place to mitigate any adverse effects of relocation (F v F 2006 (3) SA 42 (SCA)).
Q: How much weight does the court give to the child’s views and wishes in relocation cases? A: The court gives due consideration to the child’s views and wishes in relocation cases, in accordance with section 10 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. However, the child’s views are not determinative, and the court must consider them in light of the child’s age, maturity, and stage of development.
Q: What is the legal significance of the court’s finding that the relocation application was made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds? A: The court’s finding that the relocation application was made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds is legally significant as it establishes that the applicant’s motivation for the proposed relocation is genuine and not merely an attempt to frustrate the other parent’s relationship with the child (B v M [2006] 3 All SA 109 (W)).
Q: How does the court balance the competing interests of the parents in relocation cases while ensuring that the best interests of the child remain the paramount consideration? A: The court balances the competing interests of the parents in relocation cases by carefully considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. However, the court always ensures that the best interests of the child remain the paramount consideration, and any decision made must prioritise the child’s welfare above all else (section 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996).
Q: What is the legal basis for the court’s authority to make decisions in relocation cases involving children? A: The court’s authority to make decisions in relocation cases involving children is derived from its role as the upper guardian of all minors, as well as the constitutional and statutory provisions that emphasise the paramount importance of the best interests of the child (section 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and the Children’s Act 38 of 2005).
Q: How does the court address the issue of urgency in relocation cases, and what is the legal basis for granting urgent relief? A: The court addresses the issue of urgency in relocation cases by considering the potential harm or prejudice that may result from a delay in making a decision. The legal basis for granting urgent relief is rooted in the court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect the best interests of the child and to prevent any undue hardship or irreparable harm (section 45(1) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005).
Q: What is the legal significance of the court’s order for the establishment of a post-relocation parenting plan to ensure continued contact between the child and the non-relocating parent? A: The court’s order for the establishment of a post-relocation parenting plan is legally significant as it demonstrates the court’s commitment to protecting the child’s right to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents, even in the context of relocation. This order is in line with the principles set out in the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which emphasise the importance of promoting co-parenting and shared responsibilities in the upbringing of children (sections 7(1)(f) and 33 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005).
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
Download the Case here: