KV v PV (13126/20) [2021] ZAGPJHC 432 (14 December 2021)

The parties have one minor child, A, aged 11 years of age. Pursuant to the Rule 43 Application launched shared residency was agreed upon on a week on week off basis. The parties agreed on a clinical psychologist Anthony Townsend to compile a report and his findings were of early alienation having manifested which required immediate intervention. Various experts including a parenting coordinator and a psychotherapist were recommended. The parties failed to reach agreement on a parenting coordinator and the other experts’
Editorial note: Certain information has been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law.
2
mandates were not signed nor implemented. The minor child started regressing and refused to go to Applicant, forcing her to bring the Application.
1.Issues to be determined, whether the expert, Anthony Townsend, should re-investigate the matter given the lapse of implementation of his recommendations,whether the recommendations in his report should be implemented, with updatedrecommendations if so required; determining the best interests of the minor childinsofar as parental rights and responsibilities are concerned in light of the events thathave transpired after such report being rendered. For the Applicant, thereinvestigation and alienation is to be addressed first, before the VOTC.
2.For the Respondent, whether a legal representative (Curatrix ad Litem) with powersto appoint experts; act on behalf of the minor representing the minor and the voice ofthe child (VOTC) should be appointed, whether the contact with the Applicant shouldbe limited pending a report by the Curatrix ad Litem.
3.Given the lapse of time and delays, the question arose whether the best interest ofthe minor child was served by both the Applicant and the Respondent and the role ofthe court as upper guardian in relation to it.
4.This case demonstrates the importance of appointing a legal representative for a childto protect the child’s interests where parties are warring with each other overlookingthe child’s needs.
5.The Court could not impose a parental coordinator on the parties as it will constitutean impermissible delegation of judicial authority. Instead the court appointed amediator to resolve such appointment. A curatrix ad litem was appointed by the court
3
to protect the interest of the minor, save to conduct a VOTC assessment until the alienation has been addressed.
6.Both the Applicant and the Respondent shall be jointly liable, in equal shares, for thecosts of the Curatrix ad Litem, the mediator and any expert engaged until the issueof maintenance will be adjudicated. The cost of the Application is costs in the cause.