Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

26section (b).As I have indicated, if these requirements aresatisfied, then the result flows automatically 8 .37 I mention this specifically as the argument which was advanced,both in the Respondent’s papers and in argument before me,was to the effect that the Applicant had, in addition, todemonstrate that the Applicant’s claim to be recognised ashaving parental responsibilities and rights in respect of R couldonly succeed if the Applicant could demonstrate that suchrecognition would be in R’s best interests. Thus, so the argumentran, the criteria listed in section 21 of the Act fell to be readtogether with the “best interests of the child” standard - theresult being (according to the Respondent) that it was notsufficient for the Applicant to demonstrate simply that he hadsatisfied the criteria listed in the Section.38 As I indicated to counsel for the Respondent in the course ofargument, such an approach would be completely at odds withthe Act.Indeed, and as I attempted to explain, that was, insubstance, the position at common law and also under theNatural Fathers of Children Born out of Wedlock Act 9 ; and it wasprecisely in order to alter that position that Section 21 of the Act8 For authority for this proposition (to the extent that any is required), see Davel and Skelton (supra) 3-12to 3-13.9 Act 86 of 1997.