key to the study guide - Name
key to the study guide - Name
key to the study guide - Name
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
In Petersen v Maintenance Officer <strong>the</strong> Cape provincial division of <strong>the</strong> high<br />
court declared this rule unconstitutional on <strong>the</strong> ground that it<br />
unjustifiably violated <strong>the</strong> extra-marital child's right not be unfairly<br />
discriminated against on <strong>the</strong> ground of birth and his or her right <strong>to</strong><br />
dignity, and failed <strong>to</strong> afford paramountcy <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> child's best interests.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> light of <strong>the</strong> aforementioned, Mr and Mrs Nel will (<strong>to</strong>ge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
with Britney's parents) be liable for Tim's maintenance.<br />
Siblings If nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> child's parents nor his or her grandparents are in a position<br />
<strong>to</strong> support <strong>the</strong> child, <strong>the</strong> duty of support passes <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> child's siblings<br />
according <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir respective means, provided that <strong>the</strong> sibling who claims<br />
maintenance is indigent.<br />
Stepparents Note that, at common law, a stepparent is not obliged <strong>to</strong> maintain his or<br />
her stepchild, as <strong>the</strong> duty <strong>to</strong> support rests on blood relationship, and not<br />
affinity. However, in Heystek v Heystek <strong>the</strong> court held that a stepparent does<br />
have a duty of support in respect of his or her stepchild. The decision is<br />
wrong in so far as <strong>the</strong> court held that marriage in community of property,<br />
<strong>the</strong> existence of a common household and consortium omnis vitae with <strong>the</strong><br />
child's mo<strong>the</strong>r render <strong>the</strong> stepfa<strong>the</strong>r liable for his stepchild's support. In<br />
this regard you must see <strong>the</strong> criticism of Heystek v Heystek on pages 293±<br />
294 of your textbook. There it is pointed out that <strong>the</strong> only part of <strong>the</strong><br />
decision in Heystek v Heystek which may provide a valid basis for conferring<br />
a duty of support on a stepparent is <strong>the</strong> court's view that <strong>the</strong> child's right<br />
<strong>to</strong> parental care gives <strong>the</strong> child a right <strong>to</strong> claim maintenance from his or<br />
her stepparent. If this part of <strong>the</strong> decision is correct, it means that <strong>the</strong><br />
Constitution has created a duty of support between stepparent and<br />
stepchild. Thus, for <strong>the</strong> latter reason, it may be that a stepparent is now<br />
obliged <strong>to</strong> support his or her stepchild. Time will tell whe<strong>the</strong>r o<strong>the</strong>r courts<br />
will be prepared <strong>to</strong> accept <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong>re is a duty of support between<br />
stepparent and stepchild.<br />
278<br />
2 THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY OF SUPPORT<br />
Nextyouhave<strong>to</strong><strong>study</strong><strong>the</strong>ruleson<strong>the</strong>scopeof<strong>the</strong>duty<strong>to</strong>supporta<br />
child. These rules are set out on pages 294±295 of <strong>the</strong> textbook.<br />
3 ENFORCEMENT OF THE DUTY OF SUPPORT<br />
In <strong>study</strong> unit 8 above we very briefly and superficially dealt with<br />
enforcement of maintenance. That discussion dealt specifically with<br />
enforcement of maintenance between spouses. On page 295 of <strong>the</strong><br />
textbook you will see that <strong>the</strong> same principles which govern enforcement