Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

24child in terms of section 20, acquires full parentalresponsibilities and rights in respect of the child -(a)if at the time of the child's birth he is livingwith the mother in a permanent life-partnership; or(b)if he, regardless of whether he has lived or isliving with the mother-(i)consents to be identified or successfullyapplies in terms of section 26 to be identifiedas the child's father or pays damages in termsof customary law;(ii)contributes or has attempted in goodfaith to contribute to the child's upbringing fora reasonable period; and(iii)contributes or has attempted in goodfaith to contribute towards expenses inconnection with the maintenance of the childfor a reasonable period.”35 It is evident from discussion papers and literature whichpreceded the Act 6 , and indeed from the language of the Actitself, that the regime created by Section 21 was designed notonly to secure certain rights for the fathers of children born out6 For a comprehensive list of relevant literature see Davel and Skelton (supra) 3-12 op cit 2
25of wedlock but that the lawmaker was also mindful of theinterests of children born out of such unions and that it sought toestablish a regime which would best suit their interests.Thesection accordingly provides for the automatic recognition ofparental responsibilities and rights, provided certain criteria aremet. These criteria are designed to put both the father and thechild in substantially the same position (if indeed not theidentical position) as that which applies in respect of childrenborn in wedlock.36 It is apparent from the language of the section that the test is anobjective one. Thus, if an applicant father was living with themother in a permanent life-partnership at the time of the child’sbirth 7 , then he automatically qualifies to have, and in fact has,full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of that child interms of the provisions of Section 21(1)(a). Alternatively, and inthe event that the requirements of sub-paragraph (a) are notfulfilled, then the same result follows if the applicant father isable to show that he has satisfied the requirements of sub-7 As to the arbitrariness of the criterion as framed see A Louw: The Constitutionality of a BiologicalFather’s Recognition as a Parent (2010) 13 PER 156. Reason suggests that the criterion should morecorrectly relate to the time of conception.
Page 1 and 2: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICASOUTH GAUTE
Page 3 and 4: 33 The facts surrounding R’s conc
Page 5 and 6: 5regard, was that in the intervenin
Page 7 and 8: 7perceived to be “illegitimate”
Page 9 and 10: 9regard, the Respondent states that
Page 11 and 12: 11rights does not appear clearly in
Page 13 and 14: 1317 As I also sought to explain to
Page 15 and 16: 15“To discuss R….s care and mai
Page 17 and 18: 17“wonderlike speelmaat” and th
Page 19 and 20: 19“The undersigned is of the prof
Page 21 and 22: 21during the week commencing 5 Nove
Page 23: 23two daughters over an extended pe
Page 27 and 28: 27was enacted. This represents a fu
Page 29 and 30: 2940.5 He was willing to allow R to
Page 31 and 32: 3144 Turning to the issue of costs,
Page 33 and 34: 33the proposition that counsel are
Page 35 and 36: 353.1.5.For the purpose of exercisi
Page 37 and 38: 373.4.3.The provisions of para 3.1.

Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?