were had to the concerns of the respondent as earlier shown. Although it seems that H has developed a negative attitude towards the respondent, I am unable to say if it is not a transient phenomenon that will heal with the passage of time - and I take into account the averment in answer that she had since apologised to respondent’s and that the two of them are getting along and that H had since made new friends “H” at the new scool and is adjusting. Of course, when the substantive application is brought in due course these issues will be more properly and objectively evaluated and in that context one will be able to determine regardless of the wishes of the – respondent as custodian-parent - what is in the best interests of It must be “H”. accepted that grades have declined as alleged by the respondent and that the “H”’s permissive approach to parenting adopted by the applicant may have something to do with that. [22] I am also satisfied that the respondent, in placing in the care of the applicant “H” since April 2011, did not by so doing abdicate her role as custodian-parent and in effect passed it on to the applicant. Application fails [23] I come to the conclusion, based on the common cause facts and the facts set up by the respondent, that the applicant did not establish to my satisfaction and on a balance of probabilities that the decision to move to Otjiwarongo respondent’s “H” was actuated by motives other than the best interests of The application must “H”. therefore fail at this stage. Costs
were had to the concerns of the respondent as earlier shown. Although it seems that H has developed a negative attitude towards the respondent, I am unable to say if it is not a transient phenomenon that will heal with the passage of time - and I take into account the respondent’s averment in answer that she had since apologised to “H” and that the two of them are getting along and that H had since made new friends at the new scool and is adjusting. Of course, when the substantive application is brought in due course these issues will be more properly and objectively evaluated and in that context one will be able to determine – regardless of the wishes of the respondent as custodian-parent - what is in the best interests of “H”. It must be accepted that “H”’s grades have declined as alleged by the respondent and that the permissive approach to parenting adopted by the applicant may have something to do with that. [22] I am also satisfied that the respondent, in placing “H” in the care of the applicant since April 2011, did not by so doing abdicate her role as custodian-parent and in effect passed it on to the applicant. Application fails [23] I come to the conclusion, based on the common cause facts and the facts set up by the respondent, that the applicant did not establish to my satisfaction and on a balance of probabilities that the respondent’s decision to move “H” to Otjiwarongo was actuated by motives other than the best interests of “H”. The application must therefore fail at this stage. Costs
H%20v%20D%20(A%203-2012)%20[2012]%20NAHC%207%20(27%20January%202012)%20.docx