supervised accessequal accessvideo callsbest interests of child
Tags
child accessparental rightssupervision
legislation
Statutes Cited
Constitution of Zimbabwe 2013
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in granting supervised access without finding it necessary for child's best interests","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Child's burns incident, probation officer's report"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in not granting equal access","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Previous equal access, changed living arrangements"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in not granting video and voice call access","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant's travel, respondent's non-opposition"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The parties, who were never married, had a daughter Leia Maria Athitakis born 21 November 2018. After their relationship ended, they initially agreed on equal unsupervised access. Following an incident where the child suffered minor burns while in appellant's care, respondent imposed supervised access. Appellant appealed against the supervised access order.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases