Grandparents’ Contact Rights in South Africa: What the Courts Actually Say

When a family fractures, through divorce, the death of a parent or a falling-out, grandparents are often the people who lose the most without having any say. A grandmother who saw her grandchildren every week may suddenly be told that visits are over. Many grandparents assume that the law protects that relationship automatically. It does not, but neither does it leave grandparents without a remedy.

This article looks at what South African courts have actually decided, from the two early judgments that are still quoted today to more recent decisions that have granted grandparents contact, and at what those cases mean for families trying to resolve these disputes.

No automatic right, but a right to ask

South African law does not give grandparents an automatic right to see their grandchildren. Parental responsibilities and rights, including the right to decide with whom a child spends time, belong to the child’s parents unless a court orders otherwise.

What grandparents do have is the right to ask a court. Section 23 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 allows any person with an interest in the care, well-being or development of a child to apply to the High Court, a divorce court in divorce matters, or the children’s court for contact with the child or care of the child. The court must consider:

• the best interests of the child;
• the relationship between the applicant and the child, and between the child and any other relevant person;
• the degree of commitment the applicant has shown towards the child;
• the extent to which the applicant has contributed towards expenses connected with the child’s birth and maintenance; and
• any other fact that the court considers relevant.

The child’s best interests are decisive. For how these factors apply when grandparents already help with day-to-day care, see our companion article on grandparents, aunts and other caregivers in a parenting plan.

The two foundational judgments

Two judgments decided before the Children’s Act came fully into force are still cited in almost every grandparent dispute.

The two foundational judgments compared

Aspect	Townsend-Turner and Another v Morrow	Kleingeld v Heunis and Another
Citation	2004 (2) SA 32 (C); [2003] ZAWCHC 53	2007 (5) SA 559 (T)
Court	Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division (now the Western Cape High Court), Knoll J	Transvaal Provincial Division (now the Gauteng Division, Pretoria), Mavundla J
Applicants	The maternal grandmother and her former husband, whom the child regarded as his grandfather	The maternal grandfather
Background	The child’s mother had died. Relations between the grandmother and the child’s father broke down, and he restricted and then refused access.	The grandfather’s daughter and her husband refused him contact with their two young daughters.
Outcome	Application dismissed with costs. The parties were directed to mediation through the Office of the Family Advocate.	Application dismissed with costs.
Key principle	No one other than the parents has an inherent right of access, but any third party may ask the court, as upper guardian, to grant access in the child’s best interests.	A grandparent has standing to apply, but no inherent right. Parents may decide who visits their children, and a court should be slow to override parents acting in the children’s best interests.

Townsend-Turner and Another v Morrow (2003)

In Townsend-Turner, the court had reports from the Family Advocate and a clinical psychologist, who found that the boy was caught in the middle of the conflict between the adults. The Family Advocate recommended that no access be granted. The court concluded that enforced access would not serve the child, and that the relationship should be allowed to develop naturally once relations between the adults improved.

It is easy to overlook that the court did not simply close the door. It directed the parties to attend mediation with two co-mediators appointed through the Office of the Family Advocate, with the costs shared equally, so that the adults’ conflict would no longer harm the child. Following the Appellate Division in B v S 1995 (3) SA 571 (A), the court also noted that, because a child’s welfare is at stake, neither side bears an onus in the ordinary sense.

Kleingeld v Heunis and Another (2007)

In Kleingeld, the parents argued that the grandfather had no standing, that only parents hold rights over their children, and that they wished to protect the children from him because of his temperament, which he disputed. The court did not decide those factual disputes. It decided the matter on principle: the grandfather had standing to apply, but no inherent right to contact, and nothing showed that the parents were exercising their authority against the children’s best interests.

Like Townsend-Turner, the court treated these matters as non-adversarial, so that no strict onus applies, and it recognised that serious factual disputes about a child’s welfare may require oral evidence rather than a decision on affidavits alone.

A common misreading

These judgments are often summarised as “grandparents have no rights”. That is only half the story. Both courts confirmed that grandparents may approach the court, and both decided the case on its own facts. In Townsend-Turner, the decisive factor was the effect of the adults’ conflict on the child. In Kleingeld, the grandfather had not shown that overriding the parents’ decision would serve the children. Neither judgment holds that a grandparent’s application must fail.

The Children’s Act changed the framework

Both judgments were decided under the common law. Sections 23 and 24 of the Children’s Act came into operation on 1 April 2010, as the Supreme Court of Appeal noted in FS v JJ and Another. Today a grandparent’s application is decided under section 23, and courts also weigh the best-interests factors in section 7. One of those factors is the child’s need to remain in the care of family and extended family, and to maintain a connection with family, extended family, culture and tradition.

The core principle has not changed: there is still no automatic right. But the statute gives a clear route to court and a structured set of factors. Section 23 does not require a grandparent to prove that the parents are unfit, and it does not make a “special bond” a precondition, although a real and consistent relationship with the child carries considerable weight. (A grandparent seeking guardianship under section 24, where the child already has a guardian, must give reasons why that guardian is not suitable.)

Recent judgments in favour of grandparent contact

FS v JJ and Another (2010)

FS v JJ and Another 2011 (3) SA 126 (SCA). A child’s mother died two months after the birth, and her father and maternal grandparents spent years in litigation over her care. The Supreme Court of Appeal placed the child with her father, but recognised the value of the grandparents’ role. It ordered that the maternal grandmother and her husband have regular contact, arranged through a family member, and that the parties first attempt mediation if difficulties arose.

LH and Another v LA (2012)

LH and Another v LA 2012 (6) SA 41 (ECG). Paternal grandparents, whose son died before their grandson was born, had enjoyed regular contact until the child’s mother, who had since remarried, stopped it. The court held that it is usually in a child’s best interests to maintain a close relationship with grandparents, and that contact should be encouraged unless there are compelling reasons against it. It found that the mother’s opposition was driven by her own difficulties with the grandparents rather than by her son’s welfare.

The order was deliberately modest: weekly visits of three hours at the mother’s home or a place she chose, as a first step towards rebuilding the relationship, with the hope of wider contact later. The court made no costs order, so as not to strain relations further.

K.R.S v C.L (2024)

K.R.S v C.L [2024] ZAGPPHC 627. A father asked to set aside a children’s court order, made by agreement, that gave the children’s maternal grandmother contact. The children’s mother had since died, and the father wished to sever ties with her family. The High Court in Pretoria dismissed his appeal: the order remained valid after the mother’s death, there was no evidence that contact was against the children’s interests, and the grandmother had a good relationship with them.

Y.C.M v N.D.N (2024)

Y.C.M v N.D.N [2024] ZAECMKHC 144. After the children’s mother died, their father decided to “cut all ties” with her family. The children’s court granted the maternal grandmother contact, and the High Court in Makhanda dismissed the father’s appeal. The court found no foundation for his concerns about the children’s safety, observed that it is usually in a child’s best interests to maintain a close relationship with grandparents, and distinguished Townsend-Turner because these children had not been drawn into the adults’ dispute.

Because the relationship had been interrupted, the court replaced the original order with a more structured one: a weekly phone or video call, a monthly day visit, and a week with the grandmother in each long school holiday, with the first holiday visits supervised by the Department of Social Development.

Where the courts have said no

• J.J.P and Another v J.V [2020] ZAGPPHC 41. A grandmother applied, alongside the child’s father, for parental responsibilities and rights and extensive contact with a three-year-old. Her application was dismissed. She had not shown that what she sought was in the child’s best interests, and the court stressed that the child’s interests prevail over the wishes of any adult.
• P.D and Another v A.R and Another [2024] ZAKZDHC 27. A couple who were distant relatives had cared for a child from Sunday to Friday for more than four years while the parents worked away. When the parents ended the arrangement, the couple applied urgently for structured contact. The court dismissed the application, holding that caregivers in their position have no right to contact against the wishes of the parents, who are entitled to decide with whom their child has contact and on what terms.
• M.V.R v M.G.J [2025] ZANWHC 251. After a child’s mother died, a magistrate left the child in the maternal grandmother’s care. On appeal, the High Court restored the father’s care, finding no evidence that he was unsuited to it, while keeping contact in place for the grandmother. The case shows the difference between care and contact.

What the cases show

• The relationship matters more than the title. A grandparent who was part of the child’s daily life before the dispute is in a far stronger position than one relying on the family tie alone.
• A parent’s objection must relate to the child. Courts give little weight to objections rooted in adult grievances, but real conflict that reaches the child counts heavily against contact.
• Care and contact are different. Courts protect a fit parent’s primary care, while keeping grandparents in the child’s life where that serves the child.
• Orders are carefully structured. Where contact has lapsed, courts often start small, set fixed times and sometimes require supervision, so that the relationship can be rebuilt gradually.
• Courts push families towards agreement. Mediation was directed in Townsend-Turner and FS v JJ. Section 6(4)(a) of the Children’s Act calls for an approach that is conducive to conciliation and problem-solving, and in the High Court, Uniform Rule 41A requires parties to state whether they agree to mediate.

Contact is not maintenance

Grandparents and parents sometimes link two questions that the law keeps apart: may a grandparent see the child, and must a grandparent support the child?

Parents carry the primary duty to maintain their children. Under the common law, that duty can extend to grandparents where the parents cannot meet it, for example where a parent has died and the estate is insufficient. In Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C), the court held that paternal grandparents may also be called on to support a child born outside marriage. Contact, by contrast, depends on agreement or a section 23 order, and on the child’s best interests.

So paying school fees does not buy contact, although a court will count the contribution as evidence of commitment under section 23(2)(d). Being refused contact does not release a grandparent from a duty of support. Our companion article explains how to record a relative’s voluntary contribution in a parenting plan without linking it to contact.

If you are a grandparent in this position

• Start with a conversation, not a court application. A carefully facilitated discussion often resolves what letters between attorneys cannot.
• Consider mediation. A family mediator can help parents and grandparents agree on contact that fits the child’s routine, and the agreement can be recorded in a parenting plan.
• Keep the focus on the child. Evidence of your relationship with the child, your commitment and your contributions matters far more than grievances about the adults.
• Expect a gradual start. Where contact has lapsed, shorter and more structured visits are common at first.
• Take legal advice before litigating. Which court to approach, whether a Family Advocate investigation is needed and how to present the evidence are questions for an attorney.

Frequently asked questions

Keeping the door open

The case law tells a consistent story. Grandparents cannot demand contact as of right, but courts recognise how much grandparents can mean to a child, and they will protect that relationship where it serves the child and the adults’ conflict does not stand in the way. The surest route is usually an agreement reached before positions harden.

MV Inc. helps families reach workable, child-centred arrangements, including contact between children and their grandparents. Request a confidential consultation about our family mediation services, or read our guide to parenting plans in South Africa.

This article is general information about grandparents’ rights in South Africa and is not legal advice. The case summaries are simplified and each judgment turned on its own facts. Legislation and case law develop over time, so you should obtain advice on your own matter and confirm the current position before acting.

MV Inc (Malan Vermeulen Incorporated) · Ground Floor, Quadrum 3, 50 Constantia Boulevard, Floracliffe, Johannesburg, 1709 · 010 980 5160 · [email protected]