Dimitrov v Nzuzo and Another

The applicant, the biological father, and the first respondent, the biological mother, are co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights over two minor children aged 7 and 8. The parties ended their relationship in 2018. The children primarily resided with the mother in Gqeberha, while the father lives in Pretoria. Following a 2021 interim order regulating care and contact, the applicant’s contact was terminated in October 2021. Subsequent attempts at contact were sporadic and largely unsuccessful. Allegations arose that the mother frustrated contact and alienated the children from their father, while the mother alleged estrangement due to the father’s lack of financial support. In Part A of the proceedings, the Family Advocate and an independent clinical psychologist (Dr Le Roux) were appointed to investigate the best interests of the children. Both reports found evidence of parental alienation by the mother, psychological harm to the children, and recommended that primary residence be transferred to the father with therapeutic interventions and limited contact for the mother during a transition period. A rule nisi was granted on an urgent basis in December 2024, which the mother opposed on the return date.

The rule nisi granted on 17 December 2024 was confirmed. Primary residence of the children was awarded to the applicant (father), with both parents remaining co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights. Therapeutic support for the children was ordered, a parenting coordinator was appointed, and the first respondent’s contact was initially limited and structured, to be gradually extended under supervision. The first respondent was directed to engage in psychotherapy and to pay the costs of Part B of the application. The remaining relief sought by the first respondent was dismissed.

This judgment is significant for its robust judicial response to parental alienation and its affirmation that courts may order a change in primary residence where alienation poses serious psychological risks to children. It underscores the weight accorded to expert psychological evidence, the flexibility of the best interests standard, and the High Court’s wide powers as upper guardian of minor children. The case also illustrates that cost orders may be made against a parent whose conduct is found not to be aligned with the children’s best interests.