Case
Summar
Case
Case:
Summa KLVC v SDI [2015] 1 All SA 532 (SCA)
Subject:Family Law/ Parents & Children
Issue: Whether or not, in terms of section 21(1)(b) of the Act, the first respondent had
acquired full parentalrights and responsibilities in respect of the child as envisaged in section
18(2)(c),2 prior to his removalfrom the Republic in November 2012 [para 9].
Key Points:
The Appellant (mother) and
the First Respondent (father)
The Appellant (mother) and
the First Respondent (father)
The Appellant (mother) and the First Respondent (father) were a couple who were never
married or cohabitated in a permanent life partnership
The first respondent has
consented to being identified as
, The first respondent has
consented to being identified as
the The first respondent has
consented to being identified a
The first respondent has
consented to being identified
The first respondent has
consented to being iden
The first respondent has
consented to being ident
The first respondent has contested to being identified as the child’s father from the onset
November 2012: the
appellant took the child to
England
November 2012: the appellant took the child to England (to live permanently) while the first
respondent was overseas without asking permission first
The case was first presented to the court in England
The court was unable to answer the issue so they referred the case to the KwaZulu-Natal
local division, Durban who wrote the case in the first respondents favour
Appellant argued that the word and in the provision meant that all criteria had to be met in
order to achieve full parental rights and responsibilities and the first respondent had not
achieved this. Both courts rejected this and declared that these were broad categories not
strict criteria the judge stated that the S21 ( 1)( 1B) requirements are an entirely factual
enquiry used to make value judgements to determine whether a good faith attempt has
been made [para 14 and 12]
Summar
Case
Case:
Summa KLVC v SDI [2015] 1 All SA 532 (SCA)
Subject:Family Law/ Parents & Children
Issue: Whether or not, in terms of section 21(1)(b) of the Act, the first respondent had
acquired full parentalrights and responsibilities in respect of the child as envisaged in section
18(2)(c),2 prior to his removalfrom the Republic in November 2012 [para 9].
Key Points:
The Appellant (mother) and
the First Respondent (father)
The Appellant (mother) and
the First Respondent (father)
The Appellant (mother) and the First Respondent (father) were a couple who were never
married or cohabitated in a permanent life partnership
The first respondent has
consented to being identified as
, The first respondent has
consented to being identified as
the The first respondent has
consented to being identified a
The first respondent has
consented to being identified
The first respondent has
consented to being iden
The first respondent has
consented to being ident
The first respondent has contested to being identified as the child’s father from the onset
November 2012: the
appellant took the child to
England
November 2012: the appellant took the child to England (to live permanently) while the first
respondent was overseas without asking permission first
The case was first presented to the court in England
The court was unable to answer the issue so they referred the case to the KwaZulu-Natal
local division, Durban who wrote the case in the first respondents favour
Appellant argued that the word and in the provision meant that all criteria had to be met in
order to achieve full parental rights and responsibilities and the first respondent had not
achieved this. Both courts rejected this and declared that these were broad categories not
strict criteria the judge stated that the S21 ( 1)( 1B) requirements are an entirely factual
enquiry used to make value judgements to determine whether a good faith attempt has
been made [para 14 and 12]
