087 822 1639
087 822 1639
Practical routines, handovers and child-focused ways to make life across two households easier after separation or divorce
Helping a child adjust to living in two homes after separation or divorce in South Africa is usually less about making both households identical and more about creating predictability, reducing parental conflict, managing belongings and handovers sensibly, and helping the child understand where they will be and when.
Where care and contact are regulated by a parenting plan or court order, the practical routine should work within that arrangement and remain focused on the child’s best interests.
If a child persistently resists moving between homes or raises a safety concern, the reason should be explored rather than dismissed.
South African law does not prescribe one standard living arrangement for children whose parents have separated.
The Children’s Act requires the child’s best interests to guide decisions affecting care and wellbeing and recognises appropriate participation by a child who is sufficiently mature to express a view.
This article provides general information about children living across two households after separation or divorce in South Africa. It does not constitute legal, psychological or other professional advice and does not predict the outcome of an individual matter.
| Question | General position |
Do both homes have to operate in exactly the same way? | No. Predictability can help, but the households do not have to be identical |
Does living in two homes automatically mean equal time with each parent? | No. The arrangement depends on the individual child and the applicable parenting arrangements |
Can routines help? | Yes. Clear calendars, predictable handovers and practical preparation can reduce unnecessary uncertainty |
Should a child carry everything between homes? | Not if it can reasonably be avoided. Keeping essential everyday items at both homes can simplify transitions |
Can a child express a preference? | A child capable of meaningful participation has a right to participate appropriately, and the child’s views must receive due consideration |
Does the child decide where to live? | No. The child’s views are important but are not the only consideration |
What if the child does not want to go to the other home?
| The reason should be explored carefully rather than assuming either manipulation or misconduct |
| What if the child raises a safety concern? | A genuine safety concern requires careful assessment and may require urgent professional or legal advice |
| Can a parenting plan regulate the practical arrangements? | Yes. Parenting plans can address residence, contact, maintenance, schooling and related matters |
| Does a parent always need the other parent’s consent to move to another province? | No. Domestic relocation is more nuanced; significant moves can nevertheless engage the Children’s Act and existing orders or parenting arrangements |
Some children spend substantial time in both parents’ homes. Others live primarily with one parent and spend defined periods with the other.
Neither arrangement should be assumed to be correct simply because it works for another family.
The Children’s Act requires attention to the circumstances of the particular child.
Relevant best-interests considerations can include the child’s relationships, attitude of the parents towards the child, capacity to provide for the child’s needs, likely effect of changes in circumstances, practical difficulty and expense of maintaining contact, the need for stability, and the need to protect the child from harm.
International research also cautions against treating the label attached to a living arrangement as the sole explanation for children’s outcomes.
Vowels, Comolli, Bernardi, Chacón-Mendoza and Darwiche, “Systematic review and theoretical comparison of children’s outcomes in post-separation living arrangements” (PLOS ONE 18(6), 2023, e0288112; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288112), reviewed 39 studies and found considerable variation across post-separation living arrangements, with relationships, resources, parental circumstances and child characteristics among the factors relevant to outcomes.
The review concerned predominantly Western countries and should therefore not be treated as South African evidence, but it supports a cautious approach to claims that one residence formula is universally best.
The better question is: What arrangement is workable and appropriate for this child?
Children can understand that different households operate differently.
One parent may have an earlier bedtime. The other may structure homework differently. Meals, weekend routines and household responsibilities may not be the same.
Trying to make every detail identical can create unnecessary conflict between parents.
What generally matters more in practical terms is that the child knows what to expect and that fundamental issues affecting the child’s welfare are appropriately managed.
Parents should distinguish between ordinary household differences, which may not require agreement, and important parenting decisions, which may engage parental responsibilities and rights, an existing parenting plan, a court order or section 31 of the Children’s Act.
For the broader framework governing major parenting decisions, see Co-Parenting After Separation in South Africa.
An arrangement can make perfect sense to the adults and still be confusing to a child.
Depending on the child’s age and circumstances, a simple calendar may help show school days, where the child will sleep, weekends, holidays, important school events, birthdays and changes to the usual routine.
For a younger child, this might be a visual calendar. For an older child, a shared digital calendar may be more practical.
The objective is not to make the child responsible for managing the parenting arrangement. It is to reduce unnecessary uncertainty about what happens next.
Repeatedly moving basic belongings between households can make transitions more complicated than they need to be.
Where reasonably affordable and practical, each home can keep everyday essentials such as toiletries, basic clothing, sleepwear, chargers, school stationery and ordinary medication where this can be done safely and consistently.
Some belongings will naturally travel with the child. A favourite toy, school laptop, sports equipment or comfort item may matter precisely because it belongs to the child rather than to either household.
The principle is simple: The child should move between homes. Their entire life should not have to be packed each time.
Parents should also avoid turning possessions into territorial markers by insisting that clothes, toys or gifts purchased by one parent cannot move to the other household unless there is a genuine practical reason.
A parenting arrangement operates around a child’s life. The child’s life should not have to operate entirely around the parenting arrangement.
Parents should consider the effect of the schedule on school attendance, homework, sport and extracurricular activities, friendships, religious or cultural activities, medical appointments, sleep, transport, and time with siblings and extended family.
This becomes particularly important where the parents live far apart.
Section 7 of the Children’s Act expressly recognises matters such as the likely effect of changes in the child’s circumstances, practical difficulties and expense associated with maintaining contact, and the child’s need for a stable family environment as potentially relevant to the best-interests enquiry.
A technically equal timetable is not necessarily a practically sensible one.
A handover should not become the emotional centre of the parenting arrangement.
Where relations between parents are workable, a short and calm exchange may be sufficient.
Where direct interaction repeatedly produces arguments, alternatives may be more appropriate.
Depending on the circumstances, these can include school-based transitions, clearly agreed collection and return times, neutral collection points, or more structured arrangements where direct parental interaction needs to be limited.
The child should not be used to deliver legal messages, collect maintenance, report on the other household, return disputed property, negotiate schedule changes or carry adult grievances between parents.
For broader communication and conflict-management principles, see Co-Parenting After Separation in South Africa.
Some children move easily between homes. Others may need time to readjust after a transition.
A child who is quiet, tired or irritable immediately after a handover has not necessarily rejected the other parent or had a bad experience there.
Parents should be cautious about assigning an adult explanation to every change in mood.
A simple settling-in routine can sometimes help. That might mean unpacking, having a snack, spending quiet time, checking the next day’s school requirements, or allowing the child some space before asking questions.
Repeated interrogation such as ‘What happened at Mum’s?’ or ‘Who was at Dad’s house?’ can place a child in an uncomfortable position.
Questions should be motivated by the child’s needs, not by surveillance of the other parent.
Living across two homes becomes significantly more difficult when the child is expected to carry the emotional burden of the parents’ dispute.
Parents should avoid criticising the other parent to the child, asking the child to choose sides, making the child responsible for adult communication, discussing litigation in front of the child, asking the child to confirm one parent’s version of events, making the child feel disloyal for enjoying time with the other parent, or using handovers as opportunities to continue unresolved arguments.
The Children’s Act expressly favours approaches conducive to conciliation and problem-solving in matters involving children and recognises the importance of protecting children from harm.
This does not mean serious concerns should be ignored. It means genuine concerns should be addressed through the appropriate adult process rather than placing the burden on the child.
Section 10 of the Children’s Act gives a child who has sufficient age, maturity and development to participate meaningfully the right to participate appropriately in matters concerning them.
The child’s views must receive due consideration.
This is important when a child lives between two homes.
A child may have useful views about the length of stays, school-night transitions, transport, extracurricular activities, privacy, belongings, holiday arrangements or difficulties with the existing routine.
Listening does not mean asking: ‘Which parent do you want to live with?’ Nor does section 10 give the child an automatic veto over an arrangement.
The child’s views are part of the decision-making process. Their weight depends on the individual child and the nature of the issue.
Parents should try to create a space in which a child can say, ‘This arrangement is difficult for me,’ without fearing that one parent will celebrate the answer and the other will feel rejected.
Resistance to a handover can have many possible explanations.
Depending on the circumstances, a child may be tired, anxious about changing environments, reluctant to leave an activity or friend, struggling with a particular schedule, responding to parental conflict, testing boundaries, worried about something in the other home, or trying to communicate a more serious concern.
Parents should therefore avoid jumping immediately to either of two conclusions: ‘The other parent is turning the child against me’ or ‘The child does not want to go, so contact must stop.’
The reason needs to be understood.
Where there is an existing court order or parenting plan, a parent should also be cautious about unilaterally disregarding it.
Where persistent resistance cannot be resolved, legal or appropriately qualified professional input may be needed.
Ordinary difficulty adjusting between two homes should not be confused with a genuine safety concern.
If a child reports violence, abuse, threats or conduct that may place them at risk, the issue requires proper attention.
South Africa’s domestic-violence framework expressly recognises coercive behaviour, controlling behaviour and exposing a child to domestic violence among the forms of conduct addressed by the legislation.
In a safety-sensitive case, conventional advice about friendly handovers, frequent parental communication or highly collaborative co-parenting may be inappropriate.
A more structured arrangement, professional assessment or urgent legal intervention may be required depending on the facts.
The safety issue should be addressed on its evidence rather than being either minimised or used strategically in an unrelated parental dispute.
A well-considered parenting plan can give structure to life across two households.
Under section 33 of the Children’s Act, co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights may agree on a parenting plan regulating the exercise of those responsibilities and rights.
A plan may deal with matters including where and with whom the child lives, maintenance, contact, schooling and religious upbringing.
Where co-holders are experiencing difficulties exercising their parental responsibilities and rights, section 33 creates a particular pre-court process and requires them first to seek agreement on a parenting plan with the prescribed assistance or mediation.
Section 34 requires a parenting plan to be in writing and signed. Subject to the statutory requirements, it may be registered with the Family Advocate or made an order of court.
A useful parenting plan should be clear enough to reduce recurring disputes without trying to regulate every minute of the child’s life.
For more detail, see Co-Parenting After Separation in South Africa.
An arrangement that works for a five-year-old may not suit a thirteen-year-old.
As children grow, circumstances may change because of school, examinations, sport, friendships, greater independence, transport needs, medical or developmental needs, parents’ work commitments, or the child’s own increasingly mature views.
Parents should not assume that changing an arrangement means the original arrangement failed. Sometimes the child has simply changed.
Where a parenting plan has been registered or made an order of court, however, the correct legal process for amendment should be considered rather than simply assuming that an informal change permanently replaces the existing instrument.
Section 34 distinguishes between amendment of a registered parenting plan and one that has been made an order of court.
No fixed percentage follows merely from describing an arrangement as involving ‘two homes’.
The Children’s Act does not prescribe a universal 50/50 division of a child’s time. Instead, its statutory framework centres the individual child’s best interests and allows parenting plans to determine where the child lives and how contact operates.
That means the appropriate allocation of time must be assessed in context rather than derived from a standard mathematical formula. This is an inference from the statutory framework rather than an express statutory rule.
A child can experience both households as genuine homes even where the time spent in them is not equal.
Conversely, equal time on a calendar does not by itself establish that an arrangement is working well.
For a more detailed legal discussion, see Primary Residence and Contact With Children in South Africa.
A parent does not automatically require the other parent’s consent merely because they propose relocating with a child from one province to another within South Africa.
In T.L.K v E.E.E.B (2024/149673) [2025] ZAGPJHC 101, the Gauteng High Court held that the Children’s Act does not expressly regulate interprovincial relocation and that section 31 does not expressly require another co-holder’s consent to such a move.
Where section 31(1) applies, due consideration must be given to the child’s views and wishes, having regard to the child’s age, maturity and stage of development.
Separately, where section 31(2) applies, due consideration must be given to another co-holder’s views and wishes where the decision is likely significantly to change, or 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.
Similarly, in B.M.S v J.N.W [2025] ZAGPJHC 112, involving a proposed relocation from Johannesburg to Cape Town, the Court stated that consent for relocation within South Africa was not strictly required by the Children’s Act and considered the relocation under section 31 and the children’s best interests.
That does not mean a parent should assume that every domestic relocation can safely be implemented unilaterally.
A proposed move may materially affect the child’s living arrangements, schooling, established contact, the other parent’s exercise of parental responsibilities and rights, travel and transport, an existing parenting plan, or a court order.
Existing orders and the specific facts therefore matter.
For the legal framework, see Child Relocation in South Africa and When a Parent Moves Away With Your Child.
Where the homes are in different cities or substantial travel is required, the parenting arrangement may need to deal expressly with flights or other transport, who books travel, who pays travel costs, collection and handover arrangements, school holidays, remote communication, missed or delayed travel, passports where relevant, and how ordinary contact will operate during school terms.
Distance can also change what is realistic.
Frequent short periods of contact may become impractical, while longer blocks during holidays may become more important.
That is one reason relocation should be considered as more than a change of address.
After separation, one or both parents may eventually form new relationships.
The arrival of a new partner can make a household feel different to the child.
Parents should avoid forcing the child into an immediate emotional role or expecting the new partner to replace the other parent.
The child may need time to understand who lives in the home, what role the new adult has, what the household rules are, and whether their relationship with their parent is still secure.
The same applies where step-siblings or other household members are introduced.
This article does not attempt to prescribe how quickly a new relationship should develop. The circumstances differ too widely.
The focus should remain on the child’s adjustment and safety rather than adult competition.
Not every difficulty requires a psychologist, social worker, Family Advocate or court application. Many children adjust over time.
Professional assistance may nevertheless be worth considering where handovers cause persistent and substantial distress, the child’s behaviour or functioning changes significantly, school performance or attendance deteriorates, the child persistently refuses an existing arrangement, the parents cannot communicate without serious conflict, the child is repeatedly placed in the middle of the dispute, allegations of abuse, violence or neglect arise, the child has particular developmental or psychological needs, the parenting arrangement has become practically unworkable, or the parents need to reconsider a parenting plan or court order.
The appropriate professional depends on the issue.
A legal dispute does not automatically require psychological treatment, and a psychological difficulty is not automatically solved through litigation.
No checklist can determine the correct parenting arrangement on its own.
It can, however, expose areas where avoidable uncertainty or conflict is making life more difficult for the child.
Separation changes the structure of a family, but it should not require a child to live two entirely disconnected lives.
The objective is not to create perfectly matching households.
It is to create an arrangement in which the child can understand the routine, maintain important relationships, move between homes without carrying the parents’ conflict, and have their changing needs taken seriously.
The Children’s Act requires decisions concerning children to remain focused on their best interests and gives children capable of meaningful participation an appropriate voice in matters affecting them.
For many families, the most useful question is therefore not: ‘How do we divide the child’s time equally?’ but: ‘How do we make the arrangement work well for this child?’
Martin Vermaak Attorneys Inc. advises on South African family-law matters involving children, including care and contact, primary residence, parenting plans, parental responsibilities and rights, Family Advocate processes, disputed handovers, relocation and changes to existing parenting arrangements.
Where an arrangement across two households is no longer working, an early assessment can help identify whether the difficulty is primarily practical, requires a parenting-plan adjustment, needs professional assessment or raises a legal issue requiring more formal intervention.
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
