his children, in the interim, on the terms, as reflected in the previous agreement, concluded between the parties. [15] The refusal to grant access to the 1st respondent, to his children, as communicated as per Mr Stolze’s letter of 25 September 2015, Annexure to the “J8”, answering papers, on behalf of the applicant, clearly evidences- and also amounts to a further blatant breach of the court’s order of the 21st of September 2015. [16] In such circumstances, the further arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant fall to be considered in order to determine whether or not the court should nevertheless hear the applicant without first insisting on compliance with its order of the 21st of September 2015. [17] If I understand Mr Mouton’s submissions in this regard correctly, he based the applicant’s case, to be exempted from having to comply with the court’s orders in question, before being heard, essentially on four pillars, namely: That the applicant was with an illegal expert report compiled by Professor Naudé, which the court had regard to, in its judgment of the 21st of September 2015, and, on the basis of which, the court had ordered the placement of the children in the hostel. That Ms Vorback, in her letter dated 23 September 2015, two days after a reasoned judgment had been delivered, in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 of such letter, had advised, in response to one of the questions posed by Mr Stolze, the applicant’s legal practitioner of record, as follows. Should Mr McDonalds behaviour, as stated in my letter of 9 September 2015 continue and is not monitored, a hostel placement might leave the children even more vulnerable. This possibility as stated in 5.2 could provide a more neutral placement in order to stabilize the children’s situation and have the least emotional impact and insecurities on them, instead of uprooting them and moving them back to a school and hostel from which they are gone for nearly two years. With this option they could
his children, in the interim, on the terms, as reflected in the previous agreement, concluded between the parties. [15] The refusal to grant access to the 1st respondent, to his children, as communicated as per Mr Stolze’s letter of 25 September 2015, Annexure “J8”, to the answering papers, on behalf of the applicant, clearly evidences- and also amounts to a further blatant breach of the court’s order of the 21st of September 2015. [16] In such circumstances, the further arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant fall to be considered in order to determine whether or not the court should nevertheless hear the applicant without first insisting on compliance with its order of the 21st of September 2015. [17] If I understand Mr Mouton’s submissions in this regard correctly, he based the applicant’s case, to be exempted from having to comply with the court’s orders in question, before being heard, essentially on four pillars, namely: That the applicant was with an illegal expert report compiled by Professor Naudé, which the court had regard to, in its judgment of the 21st of September 2015, and, on the basis of which, the court had ordered the placement of the children in the hostel. That Ms Vorback, in her letter dated 23 September 2015, two days after a reasoned judgment had been delivered, in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 of such letter, had advised, in response to one of the questions posed by Mr Stolze, the applicant’s legal practitioner of record, as follows. Should Mr McDonalds behaviour, as stated in my letter of 9 September 2015 continue and is not monitored, a hostel placement might leave the children even more vulnerable. This possibility as stated in 5.2 could provide a more neutral placement in order to stabilize the children’s situation and have the least emotional impact and insecurities on them, instead of uprooting them and moving them back to a school and hostel from which they are gone for nearly two years. With this option they could
Moor%20v%20McDonald%20(A%20244-2015)%20[2015]%20NAHCMD%20253%20(30%20September%202015).docx