The need for clarity and realism in relocation applications involving minor children

Introduction

This article examines the matter of T.R.S.T v U.A.R and Others (019086/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 399, a High Court judgment concerning a mother’s application to relocate her two minor children permanently from South Africa to Israel. The judgment shed light on how relocation applications should always contain a detailed, satisfactory, and realistic relocation plan that places the best interests of the children above all. 

The facts

The Applicant, a mother of two children, holds dual Israeli and American citizenship, and was living in South Africa on a spousal visa.  After her visa expired she obtained a fraudulent one, leading to a conviction and an order for deportation. Facing the reality of having to leave South Africa, she asked the court to allow her to take the children with her to Israel.

The children’s father, a South African, strongly opposed the relocation. The father raised concerns about the conflict in Israel and questioned whether it was a safe and stable environment for the children. He stated that the children were well-settled in South Africa, and that he was financially and emotionally capable of taking care of them. 

The law

The court’s decision was guided by one central principle – the best interests of the children – as set out in section 28(2) of the Constitution and section 7 of the Children’s Act. The court held that in cases like this where both parents share parental rights the court does not assume anything for or against relocation. Instead, it looks at the full picture and carefully considers all the facts. 

In considering the full picture, the court criticised the insufficiency of the Applicant’s explanation of how relocation would be in the best interests of the children. At paragraphs 26 to 29, the court illustrated how the Applicant’s relocation plans lacked clarity and detail, particularly around how she would support the children. For example, there was insufficient information about her job prospects, the cost of living, or dependable family support. Furthermore, in paragraph 31, the court expressed concern that moving the children to Israel could put them at risk because of the ongoing conflict.

In contrast, the court found that the Respondent, who is the father of the minor children, presented a more comprehensive plan for their care in the event that they are not relocated. The Respondent argued that the children will reside with him as primary caregiver in his home. His fiancée expressed her willingness to assist the Respondent in raising them. The Respondent also showed that he is gainfully employed, manages his own law practice and supports the minor children independently, providing a lifestyle befitting his financial means. The court further found that the children are familiar with the Respondent’s extended family members through regular visits with their father.

The court dismissed the mother’s application for relocation, finding that, despite the difficult impact this would have on her and the children’s relationship, it was not in the children’s best interests to move to Israel under the circumstances, namely; the lack of clarity with regards to how the children would be cared for; an unclear support structure; and the ongoing war in Israel.

 Conclusion

The court's role as upper guardian of all minor children demanded that it look beyond the competing interests of the parents and focus solely on what serves the best interests of the minor children. In doing so, this judgment reinforced the principle that relocation applications must be supported by well-considered, realistic, and child-centred plans, and that parental rights cannot override a child’s right to a safe and stable environment.