The High Court considered an application about a child’s primary residence and whether it should change from the mother in the Eastern Cape to the father in Johannesburg. The judgment says section 29 of the Children’s Act creates a jurisdiction of convenience, and it dismissed the application to make the Family Advocate’s recommendation an order of court. The court directed that the child’s primary residence will remain with the respondent in the Eastern Cape and invited the parties to agree a contact regime.
This may be relevant to family law and children matters involving jurisdiction, primary residence, and contact arrangements.
Evidence from source
Section 29 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 creates a jurisdiction of convenience.
Supports: Summary claim that the judgment deals with section 29 and jurisdiction
The application to have the Family Advocate’s recommendation made an order of court is dismissed.
Supports: Summary claim that the application was dismissed
by no later than 5 June 2026, to submit an agreed order regulating the applicant’s contact with O
Supports: Deadline and direction on contact arrangements