087 822 1639
087 822 1639
Parenting plans, care, contact and major parenting decisions after separation or divorce
Co-parenting after separation or divorce in South Africa means organising a child’s care, contact, parenting plans and important parenting decisions across separate households.
The child’s best interests remain paramount.
The appropriate arrangement depends on each parent’s parental responsibilities and rights, any existing court order or parenting plan, the child’s individual needs and the level of parental conflict.
Where cooperative co-parenting is unsafe or unrealistic, a more structured parenting arrangement may be appropriate.
This article provides general information about South African family law and co-parenting after separation. It does not constitute legal advice or predict the outcome of an individual matter.
| Question | General position |
What is co-parenting? | Parents continuing to manage a child’s care, contact and important parenting matters after separation while living apart. |
Does co-parenting mean 50/50 care? | No. The arrangement must suit the particular child and family. |
Do both parents automatically have identical rights? | No. Parental responsibilities and rights depend on the Children’s Act, agreements and court orders. |
Is a parenting plan required in every separation? | No. Section 33 has a specific role where co-holders are having difficulty exercising their rights and seek court intervention. |
Can a parenting plan regulate residence and contact? | Yes. It may regulate where the child lives, contact, maintenance, schooling and other parenting matters. |
Can the child express a view? | Yes, where age, maturity and development permit meaningful participation. |
Is cooperative co-parenting suitable in every case? | No. Domestic violence, coercive control or serious conflict may require a more structured approach. |
Can arrangements change later? | Yes. The correct process depends on the legal status of the existing plan, agreement or court order. |
Co-parenting describes how parents continue to raise a child after their relationship ends and they no longer live together.
It is a practical concept rather than a separate legal status under the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
A workable co-parenting arrangement may deal with:
Co-parenting does not require former partners to remain friends or to agree on every parenting style.
It requires an arrangement that protects the child from unnecessary adult conflict and allows the relevant parental responsibilities and rights to be exercised in a practical way.
Section 28(2) of the Constitution provides that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. Sections 7 and 9 of the Children’s Act give further content to that standard.
Depending on the circumstances, relevant considerations may include:
There is no single co-parenting formula that is legally preferred for every family. The arrangement must be assessed in the context of the particular child.
Not necessarily. Biological parenthood does not, by itself, mean that every parent automatically holds identical parental responsibilities and rights in every case.
The Children’s Act contains different routes through which parental responsibilities and rights arise. These include the statutory positions of biological mothers, married biological fathers and unmarried biological fathers, as well as agreements and court orders.
The Act also distinguishes care, contact, guardianship and maintenance.
Before negotiating a parenting arrangement, it is therefore important to establish which responsibilities and rights each person actually holds and whether an existing order or agreement regulates how those rights are exercised.
Related MVA guides: Parental Responsibilities, Rights and Guardianship
No. Co-parenting does not create an automatic entitlement to an equal division of time.
Shared care may work well for some children. In other families, primary residence with one parent and substantial contact with the other may provide greater stability.
The appropriate arrangement depends on the evidence and the child’s needs rather than a mathematical division of days.
Practical questions include:
Related MVA guides: Primary Residence and Contact With Children in South Africa
Recent South African cases reinforce that co-parenting arrangements are not governed by a fixed equal-time rule. In ZDE v CE (1011/2022) [2024] ZASCA 159 (18 November 2024), the Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal after the High Court had rejected both a signed child-care settlement and the Family Advocate’s recommendation.
The court remained responsible for independently determining the child’s best interests.
In DM v CHP (B6773/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 76 (4 January 2024), the High Court restored an existing contact arrangement on an interim basis pending a Family Advocate investigation after a proposed relocation would have reduced the father’s approximately 50% contact to four hours of supervised contact every second week, about 550 kilometres away.
Section 31 was relevant because the proposed change significantly affected the other parent’s exercise of parental responsibilities and rights.
These decisions do not establish a preferred 50/50 model.
They illustrate that courts examine the child’s actual care history, the practicality and stability of the arrangement, the effect of major changes and the evidence supporting the parents’ proposals.
Section 33 of the Children’s Act allows co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights to agree on a parenting plan governing how their respective responsibilities and rights will be exercised.
A parenting plan may regulate matters including:
A parenting plan must comply with the section 7 best-interests standard. Section 34 requires the plan to be in writing and signed.
Subject to the statutory requirements, it may be registered with a Family Advocate or made an order of court.
A useful parenting plan often goes beyond the minimum statutory categories and deals with the practical details that are most likely to cause future disagreement.
The level of detail should be proportionate.
Parents who communicate well may need less prescription. High-conflict arrangements often benefit from clearer boundaries, defined communication channels and fewer matters left to repeated negotiation.
Not in every separation. Section 33(2) applies specifically where co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights are experiencing difficulties in exercising those responsibilities and rights.
Before seeking court intervention, they must first seek to agree on a parenting plan.
When a parenting plan is prepared in those circumstances, section 33(5) requires the parties to seek assistance from a Family Advocate, social worker or psychologist, or mediation through a social worker or another suitably qualified person.
This should not be converted into a broader rule that every separated or divorcing parent must undergo compulsory mediation before any court application. The legal route depends on the dispute and the relief sought.
Co-parenting communication is usually most effective when it is clear, brief, child-focused and practical.
Parents do not have to resolve every emotional issue from the former relationship before they can exchange useful information about their child.
A useful parenting communication ordinarily answers:
Where direct conversations predictably escalate, written communication or an agreed co-parenting platform may reduce ambiguity and create a reliable record.
The purpose should be to make the parenting arrangement work, not to produce hostile correspondence for future litigation.
Children should not be placed in the middle of disputes between their parents. Parents should avoid:
Section 10 of the Children’s Act recognises a child’s right to participate in an appropriate way where age, maturity and stage of development permit.
Participation is not the same as making the child responsible for solving the adults’ dispute.
No. Children can usually adapt to reasonable differences between households. The two homes do not have to operate as copies of each other.
Parents may differ on routines, food, leisure, household rules or parenting style.
The more important question is whether those differences create instability, undermine the child’s welfare or make the parenting arrangement unworkable.
Some matters generally require particularly reliable information-sharing, including schooling, medication, important healthcare issues, safety arrangements and agreed handovers.
Section 30 of the Children’s Act recognises that more than one person may hold the same parental responsibilities and rights.
Subject to the Act, another law or a court order, a co-holder may generally exercise those responsibilities and rights without the consent of the other co-holder.
That general position is subject to important qualifications.
Section 31(1) requires due consideration to be given to the child’s views and wishes before specified major decisions are taken, having regard to the child’s age, maturity and stage of development.
Section 31(2) separately requires due consideration to be given to another co-holder’s views and wishes before a decision that is likely to change significantly, or to have a significant adverse effect on, that co-holder’s exercise of parental responsibilities and rights.
Due consideration does not amount to an automatic right of veto. Separate consent requirements may apply to particular guardianship matters or under an existing court order.
Relocation should not be treated simply as a scheduling problem.
A move can affect primary residence, schooling, established contact, transport, support networks, extracurricular activities and the child’s relationship with the parent who remains behind.
A proposed relocation may engage section 31 in two respects. Where section 31(1) applies, due consideration must be given to the child’s views and wishes. Separately, where the proposed decision is likely to change significantly, or to have a significant adverse effect on, another co-holder’s exercise of parental responsibilities and rights, section 31(2) requires due consideration to be given to that co-holder’s views and wishes.
Existing parenting plans, court orders, guardianship and the nature of the move must also be checked before action is taken.
If the move is international, additional guardianship, passport and travel-consent issues may arise. Parents should establish the legal position before relocating rather than trying to repair the contact arrangement afterwards.
Related MVA guides: Child Relocation in South Africa; When a Parent Moves Away With Your Child
When parents live far apart, frequent short periods of physical contact may become impractical.
The contact arrangement may need to place greater emphasis on quality, predictability and the child’s developmental needs.
A long-distance plan may address:
An arrangement that is manageable for a teenager may be exhausting for a very young child.
Long-distance plans should be built around the child rather than around a desire to make the number of days appear equal.
A failure to pay maintenance does not, by itself, cancel contact.
The Department of Justice expressly confirms that a parent is not precluded from exercising contact merely because maintenance has not been paid.
The reverse is also true as a practical principle: maintenance should not be withheld as retaliation for a contact dispute.
Each problem should be addressed through the legal process appropriate to it.
Where contact is being prevented contrary to a court order or a qualifying parental responsibilities and rights agreement, more serious enforcement consequences may arise.
The correct remedy depends on the legal instrument and the facts.
Not every separated family should be encouraged to pursue highly collaborative co-parenting.
South African domestic-violence law recognises that abuse is not limited to physical violence.
It includes conduct such as coercive behaviour, controlling behaviour and exposing a child to domestic violence.
In cases involving credible abuse or serious safety concerns, frequent direct communication and flexible informal arrangements may increase risk rather than reduce conflict.
A more structured approach may be necessary where there are credible concerns involving:
The goal remains a child-focused arrangement, but safety must not be sacrificed in the name of appearing cooperative.
Parallel parenting is a practical description, not a separate statutory category in the Children’s Act. It generally refers to a more structured arrangement designed to reduce unnecessary interaction between high-conflict parents.
Depending on the circumstances, it may involve:
Parallel parenting is not a substitute for protective measures where there is actual abuse or danger. Where safety is at risk, the appropriate legal and protective remedies should be considered.
The Office of the Family Advocate can assist in disputes concerning parental responsibilities and rights, care, contact and parenting plans.
It may mediate, assist with an agreement or parenting plan and, where appropriate, investigate the family’s circumstances and make recommendations to the court.
The Family Advocate is neutral. A recommendation may be important evidence, but the court ultimately decides what is in the child’s best interests.
Related MVA guides: The Family Advocate in South Africa
The legal response depends on what arrangement exists. There is an important difference between:
Parents should not assume that every disagreement automatically leads to contempt proceedings, criminal sanctions or a generic penalty.
The correct remedy depends on the legal status of the arrangement, the obligation that has allegedly been breached, the seriousness and frequency of the conduct, the reason for non-compliance and the child’s best interests.
Where a court order applies, a parent should not simply decide to ignore it. Legal advice may be required about enforcement or variation.
Yes. Children develop and family circumstances change.
An arrangement that worked for a preschool child may be unsuitable once the child starts school or once the parents live further apart.
Reasons for revisiting an arrangement may include:
The process for amendment depends on how the current arrangement was created.
Under section 34, a parenting plan registered with the Family Advocate may be amended or terminated by the Family Advocate on application by the co-holders who are parties to it.
A parenting plan made an order of court may be amended or terminated only by a further court order.
A workable co-parenting arrangement usually benefits from a few clear principles:
Not every co-parenting disagreement requires litigation. Legal advice may, however, be useful where:
Early advice can help distinguish an ordinary parenting disagreement from a problem that requires mediation, a Family Advocate process or court intervention.
Separation ends the adult relationship. It does not necessarily end the parents’ responsibilities towards their child.
Effective co-parenting does not require former partners to like one another, socialise together or agree on every detail. For some families, a flexible and cooperative arrangement works well.
For others, a detailed parenting plan, clear boundaries and limited direct communication provide greater stability.
Where there is abuse, coercive control, serious conflict or risk to the child, the appropriate arrangement may require professional or judicial intervention rather than greater informal cooperation.
The objective is not to appear to be the more cooperative parent. It is to create a safe, stable and legally workable arrangement that serves the child’s best interests.
Martin Vermaak Attorneys Inc. advises on South African family-law matters involving co-parenting after separation or divorce, parenting plans, parental responsibilities and rights, primary residence, care and contact, Family Advocate investigations, relocation and disputes concerning existing child-related arrangements.
Where parents are separating, careful planning at an early stage can help establish clear and workable arrangements for their children. Where co-parenting has broken down, legal advice can help identify whether the problem should be addressed through negotiation, mediation, the Family Advocate or court proceedings.
Author: Martin Vermaak, B.Proc, LLB
Attorney of the High Court of South Africa | Director, Martin Vermaak Attorneys | Over 20 years’ experience in divorce and family law
Disclaimer
This information has been prepared for general educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal, financial, tax or other professional advice. South African family law is fact-specific, and the applicable legal position may depend on the circumstances of the individual matter. Readers should obtain independent professional advice appropriate to their circumstances before making legal, financial or other decisions.
Copyright © 2026 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy
