For STBB’s family law professionals, securing the best interests of our clients’ children lies at the heart of child-focused matters, including maintenance claims, relocations, and contact disputes. In a recent judgment, the South Gauteng High Court emphasised the critical importance of centring the ‘best interests of the child’ standard in an intensely contested relocation dispute.
In T.R.S.T v U.A.R, an American-Israeli mother, who faces deportation due to her illegal immigration status, sought to permanently relocate her two minor sons from South Africa to Israel. The children’s father exercises joint parental rights and responsibilities and opposed the application on the basis that relocation conflicts with the best interests of his children.
Section 28(2) of the Constitution mandates that ‘[a] child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child’. This principle is given legislative effect under section 9 of the Children’s Act (‘the Act’), which specifies that a child’s best interests are paramount in all matters concerning their ‘care, protection, and well-being’. Highlighting the critical importance of the principle, section 7 of Act details the contours of this standard in application.
Accordingly, the High Court, which operates as the upper guardian of all minor children in matters concerning them, was required to determine whether the children’s relocation would serve their best interests in line with prevailing legislation.
Emphasising that this determination is based on the circumstances of each matter, Senyatsi J rejected any presumption in favour of relocation and instead adopted a neutral, case-specific inquiry. In doing so, he carefully assessed the children’s attachment to both parents, the quality of the caregiving environments, and the consequences of separation. Evidence showed the children were equally bonded to each parent, and separation from either would cause adjustment difficulties.
The mother’s relocation proposal, however, lacked detail. She is unemployed, has limited financial support in Israel, and intends to live with her father, who has never met the children. Notably, there was insufficient evidence on the quality of education, access to care, or day-to-day support in Israel. Furthermore, the children would likely face significant cultural and environmental adjustments, including the possibility of future military conscription under Israeli law. In addition, the court considered the geopolitical instability in Israel and the risk of physical harm from conflict.
Contrastingly, the children’s father provides a stable, familiar environment in South Africa with established routines, extended family contact, and sufficient financial means. Importantly, he has a partner who assists in caring for the children and he has been their primary source of stability.
Senyatsi J concluded that while refusing relocation would negatively impact the mother, a greater risk lay in disrupting the children’s physical security and emotional and psychological well-being. Consequently, the application for relocation was denied on the grounds that it was not in the best interests of the minor children and therefore conflicted with section 28(2) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the parties’ children will remain in South Africa with their father.
At STBB, our family law experts have the skills and experience to navigate any child-centred dispute. For sound legal guidance, contact our specialists at familylaw@stbb.co.za today and let us handle all the legal intricacies with care, efficiency, and professionalism.
This content is the property of STBB. We encourage the sharing of our content for informational purposes. However, if you wish to copy or reproduce our content on your own platform or website, please ensure that proper credit is given to STBB.
