Skip to content

T.L.D v B.G (015642/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 801

Neutral citation: [2023] ZAGPJHC 801
Court: High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (Gauteng Local Division, sitting as upper guardian of all minors in its jurisdiction)
Decided: 2023-07-13
Panel: Adams J

Why this case matters

T.L.D v B.G is the leading recent South African High Court authority on parental alienation. Sitting as upper guardian of all minors in its jurisdiction under section 28(2) of the Constitution and the Children's Act 38 of 2005, Adams J accepted the concurrent expert evidence of the court-appointed clinical psychologist Leonard Carr, the curator ad litem Adv Mark Leonard Haskins SC and supporting expert Dr De Wit that the minor child M was suffering from moderate parental alienation directed at the mother and the maternal family of origin. The Court suspended the father's contact for a three-month therapeutic window, awarded full parental responsibilities and rights and primary residence to the mother, and ordered a graduated supervised reintroduction conditional on the treating psychologist's confirmation of M's readiness. The judgment is the South African anchor case for the structural use of independent expert evidence, suspension-of-contact-paired-with-therapy and refusal to give dispositive weight to a child's expressed preference where that preference is itself a product of alienating dynamics — without statutory amendment and without invoking 'parental alienation syndrome' as a diagnostic label.

Procedural history

The applicant mother (T.L.D) and the respondent father (B.G) were never married but had jointly planned the conception of the minor child M, born 22 February 2015. Litigation over parental responsibilities and rights and contact ran continuously from M's birth. A shared-residency arrangement on a fortnightly alternating basis was put in place by an order of Moosa J dated 5 June 2020. By 2022 there had been nine previous court orders addressing parental disputes about M, and three different parenting coordinators had been appointed and none retained — including Dr Lynette Mary Roux (succeeded by Adv Vicky Olivier on 18 March 2021, whose appointment ran until 17 August 2021). On 22 November 2022, Wilson AJ appointed Advocate Mark Leonard Haskins SC as curator ad litem for M under the High Court's upper-guardian jurisdiction, and directed that clinical psychologist Leonard Carr undertake a full investigation into M's circumstances. In January 2023, M was recorded as stating that he would 'sacrifice his own life' if he could not live with his father — a statement central to Carr's subsequent assessment. By 22 February 2023 Carr had produced his final investigative report (per the SAFLII headnote and Family Laws South Africa practitioner summary; the Bregman Moodley practitioner canon dates the final report 10 March 2023). The mother then brought an urgent application in the Gauteng Local Division for restructuring of parental responsibilities, suspension of the father's contact pending therapy and ancillary orders. The father brought a counter-application seeking further expert reviews. The matter was heard on 9 May 2023; Adams J handed down judgment on 13 July 2023 (SAFLII [2023] ZAGPJHC 801; parallel reasons judgment [2023] ZAGPJHC 821 / [2023] ZAGPJHC 872; Law Library SA cites the same case as D, TE v G, B (015642/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 821). The father's subsequent application for leave to appeal was refused by the same Court on 4 August 2023 ([2023] ZAGPJHC 872), leaving the substantive orders intact.

Counsel

  • Advocate Mark Leonard Haskins SC (Senior Counsel, curator ad litem appointed under the upper-guardian jurisdiction of the High Court) — Pretoria Society of Advocates / General Council of the Bar of South Africa for the minor child M (independent representation of M's welfare interests)

Experts

  • Leonard Carr — Clinical Psychologist (HPCSA Professional Board for Psychology, Clinical category); court-appointed under the Wilson AJ order of 22 November 2022 (instructed by the Court (Wilson AJ, 22 November 2022 interim order)) — see practitioner practitioner:za.carr-leonard
  • Dr Lynette Mary Roux — Clinical Psychologist and parenting coordinator of record (earlier in the matter, succeeded by Adv Vicky Olivier on 18 March 2021) (instructed by the parties / prior parenting-coordinator appointment in the proceedings) — see practitioner practitioner:za.roux-lynette
  • Advocate Vicky Olivier — Advocate of the High Court, Johannesburg Society of Advocates — parenting coordinator of record in T.L.D v B.G (18 March 2021 – 17 August 2021, succeeding Dr Lynette Mary Roux) (instructed by the parties / prior parenting-coordinator appointment in the proceedings) — see practitioner practitioner:za.olivier-vicky
  • Christie Els — Counselling Psychologist (HPCSA-registered); named father's expert in the proceedings per the Bregman Moodley practitioner-canon summary (instructed by the respondent father (B.G)) — see practitioner practitioner:za.els-christie
  • Dr De Wit — Expert witness — characterised the father's underlying motivation in terms of 'pathological envy' and 'spoiling hostility' toward the mother (instructed by instructing party not confirmed from the public SAFLII headnote)

Holding

Under section 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and sections 7, 10 and 18–22 of the Children's Act 38 of 2005, where concurrent independent expert evidence — from a court-appointed clinical psychologist and a curator ad litem appointed under the High Court's upper-guardian jurisdiction — establishes that a minor child is suffering moderate parental alienation directed at one parent, the High Court (a) may suspend the alienating parent's contact for a defined therapeutic period as therapeutic space rather than punitive denial, (b) must decline to give the child's expressed preference its ordinary weight under section 10 of the Children's Act where that preference is itself the product of the alienating dynamic, and (c) must structure any resumed contact on a graduated and supervised basis conditional on the treating psychologist's confirmation of the child's readiness. The Children's Act framework can deliver this remedy without using the term 'parental alienation' and without statutory amendment.

Verbatim

summary (operative reasoning) (en):

A court should not hesitate to intervene for the welfare of the minor child, and the circumstances of the present matter call for drastic measures.

https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2023/801.html

Carr report findings adopted by the Court (en):

The child is susceptible to clinging onto the most actively influencing and persuasive parent's belief system, and parental alienation has made the child's world treacherous and emotionally dangerous.

https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2023/801.html

operative order (contact suspension) (en):

All contact between the minor child and the respondent is suspended for a period of three months to enable therapeutic intervention directed at parental alienation, reconstruction and attachment repair.

https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2023/801.html

counter-application reasoning (en):

The report of the clinical psychologist is well-reasoned and grounded in sound principles, and further delays would not serve the best interests of the minor child.

https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2023/801.html

Outcome

Application granted; counter-application dismissed. The Moosa J order of 5 June 2020 was suspended pending finalisation of the proceedings, save for specified paragraphs. Full parental responsibilities and rights and primary residence of the minor child M were awarded to the applicant mother (T.L.D). The respondent father (B.G) was restricted to specific parental responsibilities only. All contact between M and the father was suspended for a period of three months to allow therapeutic work to begin. After the three-month period, contact was to resume on a supervised basis (two hours twice weekly plus two hours at weekends) facilitated by a qualified social worker nominated through the Gauteng Family Law Forum. M was to continue in therapy directed at parental alienation, reconstruction and attachment repair with a psychologist qualified or experienced in the treatment of parental alienation. A controlled reintroduction of the father to M was to follow upon the treating psychologist's confirmation of M's readiness. Costs of the child's psychologist to be shared equally; the father to bear all costs of contact supervision; the father ordered to pay the applicant's costs and the costs of the counter-application. The parties were directed to jointly request appointment of a judicial case manager within five days. The father's subsequent application for leave to appeal was refused on 4 August 2023 ([2023] ZAGPJHC 872), leaving the substantive orders intact.

Comparative jurisprudence

  • NF v AF [2025] CSOH 13 (UK-SCO) — nf-v-af-2025-csoh-13-scotland — Scottish Outer House (Lord Stuart) recognition-anchor counterpart. Like T.L.D v B.G, the case proceeds without any 'parental alienation syndrome' diagnostic construct: Lord Stuart grounds findings in the s.11(7C) Children (Scotland) Act 1995 statutory definition of 'abuse' just as Adams J grounds findings in section 28(2) of the SA Constitution and the Children's Act 38 of 2005 best-interests framework. Both are anglo-jurisdictional High Court judgments using statutory child-welfare codes plus court-appointed clinical psychology to interrupt alienating dynamics.
  • BVerfG 17.11.2023 – 1 BvR 1076/23 (DE) — bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023 — German Federal Constitutional Court — comparative reception counterpart from the critique camp. The BVerfG held that a Sachverständigengutachten grounded in PAS is constitutionally untenable. T.L.D v B.G is structurally insulated from such a critique because Adams J's reasoning is grounded in the Children's Act 38 of 2005 best-interests framework and concurrent independent expert evidence from a court-appointed clinical psychologist and the curator ad litem — not in a 'parental alienation syndrome' diagnostic construct.
  • Cassazione, Sez. I Civile, ordinanza n. 9691 del 24 marzo 2022 (IT) — cassazione-9691-2022-italy — Italian Court of Cassation apex critique-camp counterpart on PAS as an unrecognised diagnostic construct. T.L.D v B.G operates in the recognition register without invoking PAS as a diagnosis — the comparative axis is therefore reception (Adams J's framework reads as recognition; the Cassazione's reads as critique) rather than direct doctrinal conflict.
  • ZDE v CE (1011/2022) [2024] ZASCA 159 (ZA) — Supreme Court of Appeal apex SA line on parental alienation post-T.L.D v B.G (18 November 2024); part of the SA recognition-trajectory in which T.L.D v B.G is the leading High Court anchor.
  • B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 96 (ZA) — Limpopo Division, 13 May 2025 — Rule 43 alienation-potential reasoning citing T.L.D v B.G framework; subsequent SA High Court reception.
  • M.D v L.N and Another (Reasons) (3051/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 4 (ZA) — Eastern Cape Division (Bhisho), 3 February 2025 — applied a similar framework, appointing a child psychologist to investigate alienation and propose therapeutic intervention. Subsequent SA divisional reception of the T.L.D v B.G template.
  • DM v CHP (B6773/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 76 (ZA) — Gauteng Division Pretoria — post-T.L.D v B.G High Court reception extending the recognition trajectory across SA divisions.
  • S.P v S.H (2021/017378; 2023/129706) [2025] ZAGPJHC 259 (ZA) — Gauteng Local Division Johannesburg — same-division 2025 application of the T.L.D v B.G framework.

Subsequent reception

  • Family Laws South Africa (Preller / familylaws.co.za) (2023) — Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Impact on Children: Insights from a Recent South African Case — https://familylaws.co.za/parental-alienation-syndrome-landmark-case-south-africa/
  • Leading SA family-law commentary platform's landmark case analysis treating T.L.D v B.G as the South African anchor judgment on parental alienation; traces the Court's reliance on the Carr and De Wit assessments and the role of the curator ad litem Haskins SC.
  • Family Laws South Africa (2023) — Parental Alienation in South African Family Law: Legal Framework, Case Analysis, and Comparative Perspectives — https://familylaws.co.za/parental-alienation-south-africa-family-law/
  • Analytical companion piece situating T.L.D v B.G within Children's Act 38 of 2005 framework, section 28(2) constitutional best-interests standard, and the High Court's upper-guardian jurisdiction.
  • Bregman Moodley Attorneys (Roy Bregman) (2023) — T.L.D v B.G [2023] ZAGPJHC 801 practitioner case note (25 July 2023) — https://www.bregmans.co.za/
  • Killarney-Johannesburg firm-blog practitioner-canon summary of T.L.D v B.G; carries the dating of Carr's final report as 10 March 2023 and the parenting-coordinator-of-record chronology including Roux → Olivier (18 March 2021 – 17 August 2021).
  • De Rebus (Law Society of South Africa journal — secondary tracking) (2018) — Kathleen Kriel, 'Parental alienation can be overcome', De Rebus August 2018 — http://www.derebus.org.za/parental-alienation-can-be-overcome/
  • Pre-T.L.D v B.G De Rebus PA article citing Dr Lynette Mary Roux (NABFAM Chairperson) and the SA recognition-camp PA reading; relevant background to the parenting-coordinator chronology in the matter.
  • Without Prejudice (South African legal-publishing magazine — secondary tracking) (2023) — Without Prejudice family-law coverage of post-Children's Act PA jurisprudence (general coverage, not confirmed as a discrete T.L.D v B.G case note) — https://www.withoutprejudice.co.za/
  • Standing SA legal-publishing magazine that routinely carries family-law commentary on post-Children's Act 38 of 2005 jurisprudence; a discrete Without Prejudice case note specifically on T.L.D v B.G is not publicly confirmed at time of writing.
  • Vermeulen Attorneys (practitioner commentary) (2024) — Parental Alienation Syndrome — practitioner page — https://www.vermeulenlaw.co.za/parental-alienation-syndrome/
  • SA family-law practitioner commentary citing the suspension-of-contact-pending-therapy structure pioneered in T.L.D v B.G as the operative South African model for severe alienation cases.
  • Faure & Faure (practitioner commentary) (2024) — Parental alienation and the rights of parents — https://faurefaure.co.za/parental-alienation-and-the-rights-of-parents/
  • SA family-law practitioner commentary applying the T.L.D v B.G framework to client-facing PA explanation.

See also

  • practitioner:za.hpcsa
  • practitioner:za.sacssp
  • practitioner:za.mosaic
  • practitioner:za.carr-leonard
  • practitioner:za.roux-lynette
  • practitioner:za.olivier-vicky
  • practitioner:za.els-christie
  • practitioner:za.haskins-mark-sc
  • jurisdiction:south-africa
  • case-study:nf-v-af-2025-csoh-13-scotland
  • case-study:bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023
  • case-study:cassazione-9691-2022-italy

Sources

  1. T.L.D v B.G (015642/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 801 (13 July 2023) — Adams J — https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2023/801.html (Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  2. T.L.D v B.G (015642/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 872 (4 August 2023) — application for leave to appeal refused — https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2023/872.html (Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  3. D, TE v G, B (015642/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 821 (13 July 2023) — parallel Law Library SA citation of the same matter — https://lawlibrary.org.za/akn/za-gp/judgment/zagpjhc/2023/821/eng@2023-07-13 (Law Library South Africa (AfricanLII / Laws.Africa)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  4. Children's Act 38 of 2005 — South African Government statute index — https://www.gov.za/documents/childrens-act (Government of South Africa) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  5. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 — section 28 (children's rights) — https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996 (Government of South Africa) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  6. Family Laws South Africa — Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Impact on Children: Insights from a Recent South African Case — https://familylaws.co.za/parental-alienation-syndrome-landmark-case-south-africa/ (Family Laws South Africa (Bertus Preller / familylaws.co.za)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  7. Family Laws South Africa — Parental Alienation in South African Family Law: Legal Framework, Case Analysis, and Comparative Perspectives — https://familylaws.co.za/parental-alienation-south-africa-family-law/ (Family Laws South Africa) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  8. De Rebus (Law Society of South Africa) — Kathleen Kriel, 'Parental alienation can be overcome' (August 2018) — http://www.derebus.org.za/parental-alienation-can-be-overcome/ (De Rebus / Law Society of South Africa) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  9. Without Prejudice (SA legal-publishing magazine) — family-law section (secondary tracking) — https://www.withoutprejudice.co.za/ (Without Prejudice) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  10. Bregman Moodley Attorneys — practitioner-canon summary of T.L.D v B.G — https://www.bregmans.co.za/ (Bregman Moodley Attorneys (Roy Bregman)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  11. Family Laws South Africa — B.P.M v J.L.M Rule 43 parental alienation Limpopo 2025 case note — https://familylaws.co.za/rule-43-parental-alienation-divorce-limpopo-2025/ (Family Laws South Africa) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  12. M.D v L.N and Another (Reasons) (3051/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 4 (3 February 2025) — https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAECQBHC/2025/4.html (Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII)) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  13. Vermeulen Attorneys — Parental Alienation Syndrome practitioner page — https://www.vermeulenlaw.co.za/parental-alienation-syndrome/ (Vermeulen Attorneys) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  14. Faure & Faure — Parental alienation and the rights of parents — https://faurefaure.co.za/parental-alienation-and-the-rights-of-parents/ (Faure & Faure) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30

Editorial notes

  • Parties: SAFLII cites the matter as 'T.L.D v B.G'; the parallel Law Library SA citation of the same matter ([2023] ZAGPJHC 821) records the case as 'D, TE v G, B'. Both refer to the same proceedings before Adams J. The 'T.L.D' / 'B.G' initials used here are the SAFLII neutral-citation party-letters preserved as published by the court.
  • The child's identity is anonymised to a single initial 'M' in accordance with the standard South African anonymisation convention for matters concerning children under section 28 of the Constitution and the Children's Act 38 of 2005. M's date of birth (22 February 2015) is recorded in the published reasoning and is preserved here only because it is essential to the parental-rights / age-of-participation reasoning.
  • Carr final-report date: the published Family Laws South Africa case analysis dates the Carr report as completed by 22 February 2023; the Bregman Moodley practitioner-canon summary dates the final report 10 March 2023. The discrepancy is a secondary-source-vs-secondary-source variance; the SAFLII headnote does not resolve it without the unredacted court file.
  • Verbatim quotes: the quoted passages reproduced here are reconstructed from the SAFLII judgment text and the Family Laws South Africa case-analysis paraphrases; the precise paragraph numbering ([n] format standard in SA judgments) for each excerpt should be confirmed against the unredacted SAFLII judgment text before any litigation-grade citation.
  • Counsel: the SAFLII headnote does not set out counsel for the applicant mother (T.L.D) or the respondent father (B.G) in the public extract; only the curator ad litem (Haskins SC) is named on the public record. Sandton- / Johannesburg-side counsel-of-record attribution requires the unredacted court file.
  • Dr De Wit: the public Family Laws South Africa case analysis identifies 'Dr De Wit' as providing concurring expert evidence framing the father's underlying motivation as 'pathological envy' and 'spoiling hostility'. The full given name, HPCSA registration category and instructing party of Dr De Wit are not set out in the published SAFLII judgment headnote.
  • Christie Els: the Bregman Moodley practitioner-canon summary identifies Christie Els as the named father's expert in the proceedings. This is the Africa-therapists-v2 directory record; the SAFLII headnote does not independently name Els on the public extract.
  • Parenting-coordinator chronology: per the Bregman Moodley practitioner-canon summary, Dr Lynette Mary Roux acted as parenting coordinator until 18 March 2021, when she was succeeded by Adv Vicky Olivier (whose appointment ran until 17 August 2021). The reasoning records that 'three different parenting coordinators had been appointed and none retained' but the public extract does not identify the third coordinator.
  • The Without Prejudice and De Rebus listings reflect standing SA legal-publishing-magazine secondary coverage of post-Children's Act parental-alienation jurisprudence. A discrete Without Prejudice or De Rebus case note specifically on T.L.D v B.G is not publicly confirmed at time of writing.
  • Adams J did not adopt 'parental alienation syndrome' as a diagnostic label; the judgment operates in recognition-register through the Children's Act 38 of 2005 best-interests framework and the High Court's upper-guardian jurisdiction. This is the doctrinal feature on which the case is structurally insulated from a BVerfG-style PAS-construct critique.

Author: Alan Markson.

Licensed CC BY 4.0 — AntiAlienate Knowledge. Source of truth is the sibling .json; this .md is rendered. Do not hand-edit.