key to the study guide - Name

Conditions/restrictions
In the second paragraph on page 168 of your textbook it is mentioned that
the court may impose any conditions and/or restrictions on access that it
deems in the best interests of the child. The rest of the discussion deals
with the various forms structured or defined access can take: If the siblings
are not in the same parent's custody (split or divided custody) the court
may order that access be exercised in such a way that the children spend
their weekends together. Furthermore, the court may order phased-in
access, postponed access, supervised access, and non-physical access. You
have to know what each order entails, and in which circumstances they are
granted.
Access denied In the third-last paragraph on page 168 of your textbook it is mentioned
that the court also has the power to deny the non-custodian access
altogether. It is also explained what circumstances justify such a serious
invasion of this parent's right, and which circumstances will not justify
such an order. In the second-last paragraph on page 168 of your textbook
it is mentioned that if the court is convinced that this is in the child's best
interests, it may award access to a third party who does not have an
inherent right of access.
Reasons for restrictions
or access being
denied
The rest of the discussion on pages 168±169 deals with how the court
should formulate its judgment about the reasons why conditions are being
imposed on access, or why access is being denied. The authors of your
textbook submit that the court should be careful about how it formulates
its judgment, and refers to Van Rooyen v Van Rooyen as an example of how it
should not be done. The reasons why the court in this case restricted the
non-custodial parent's right of access to her children raised a great deal of
criticism. Ensure that you know the reasons for the court's judgment in
Van Rooyen v Van Rooyen, and the criticism raised against it in VvVand in
thesequeltotheVan Rooyen decision.
ACTIVITY
After seven years of marriage, Mr Lewis informed his wife that he was
homosexual and wished to get divorce. He also told her that as soon as
their divorce was finalised, he intended to move in with his friend, with
whom he had been having an intimate relationship for the past year. Mr
and Mrs Lewis agreed that Mrs Lewis would get custody of their two
minor children. Mrs Lewis also agreed that Mr Lewis could have access to
his children on condition that they should not be exposed to their father's
homosexual relationship. During the divorce proceedings, Mrs Lewis
insists that Mr Lewis's access rights be restricted. She wishes the court to
make it clear that when the children visit him or sleep over at his place, Mr
Lewis's life partner should not be present.
In Van Rooyen v Van Rooyen, a decision full of judgmental remarks about the
abnormality and unacceptability of homosexual orientation, the court
209