Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

9regard, the Respondent states that the Applicant regularly failedto arrive or cancelled at short notice. The Applicant admits toisolated cancellations, and states that for the rest, he did arrivebut that the circumstances in which the Respondent required himto exercise his right of contact with R were unacceptable, andthat he accordingly left after a short while – which theRespondent treated as a “no-show”. I do not consider that it isnecessary for me to reach a decision in relation to these issues.On the contrary, the application itself (which, I might add, is anextremely voluminous one in relation to which the parties musthave expended large amounts of money) bears testimony to thefact that the Applicant is intent on having regular and propercontact with R.12 The parties were not able to reach any agreement.Consequently the Applicant launched the present applicationduring February of this year. As I have said, the relief which issought is, in essence, that he be granted full parentalresponsibilities and rights in respect of R and that theestablishment of a “care and contact” regime of the kind whichthis Court grantson a daily basis in the context of divorceproceedings involving young children. By this I mean to say theregime which begins with outings of limited duration and