Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

11rights does not appear clearly in any of her affidavits. On thecontrary, paragraph 38.1 of her initial opposing affidavit readsimply as follows:“I take note of the content thereof and deny that theApplicant is entitled to be granted co-parentalresponsibilities and rights with regard to care andguardianship of our minor daughter.”15 As to the prayer in respect of contact, the Applicant appeared toassert a right or entitlement and he also asserted that theregime which he proposed would be in R’s best interest – in anyevent that is how I understood the case. Respondent’s positionwas essentially as set out above.She furthermore sought torely on a report which she obtained from a psychologist, DrElsabe Swanepoel, for the proposition that no order in respect ofcontact should be made until the Applicant had been “fullypsychologically and psychometrically evaluated with a fullbattery of tests”. Indeed, when the matter was argued beforeme, that was the twin refrain, i.e. that the Applicant did not havegood morals (this, as I have said, in particular in relation to hisalleged numerous relationships with other women) and that, inthe absence of favourable expert evidence of the kind alluded to