Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

27was enacted. This represents a fundamental policy shift and itis, accordingly, completely inappropriate to read an additionaloverriding requirement into the section. On the contrary, and asI have already indicated, Section 21 creates a scheme which thelawmaker considers to be (and, I should think, undoubtedly is) inthe best interests of children born out of wedlock.39 Thus, while it is may perhaps be that the Courts have adiscretion to limit or possibly deny the recognition of parentalresponsibilities and rights in appropriate cases such discretion ifit exists at all, would clearly only be exercised against abiological father in the most extraordinary of circumstances.Precisely what such circumstance might be is not a matter withwhich I need concern myself as such considerations clearly donot arise in casu. Indeed, and as I have already pointed out, thelanguage of the section and, in particular the use of the word“acquires” indicates that parental rights and responsibilities areacquired automatically once the requirements of the Section arefulfilled, so that the function of a court seized of a matter of thiskind is limited to giving (or perhaps refusing to give) declaratoryrelief. At the risk of repetition, whether or not such declaratoryfalls to be granted is to be determined on an objective basis withreference to the criteria listed in the section. There is no onus on