Category Archives: Family Law

When must you consult the Family Advocate?

You may consult the Family Advocate if you have a dispute relating to either the best interests of a child and/or parental responsibilities and rights. Other circumstances under which the family advocate may be consulted include:

1. When parties require assistance in drafting parental responsibilities and rights agreements and to register such with the Family Advocate or to amend, and/or terminate the said agreements registered with him or her.

  1. When parties require assistance in drafting parenting plans and to amend or terminate such parenting plans registered with him or her.
  1. An application to define contact.
  1. A custody, access or guardianship dispute arising from the dissolution of a customary or religious marriage.
  1. Domestic Violence and Maintenance cases referred to the Family Advocate in terms of the Judicial Matters Second Amendment Act (Act 55 of 2003).
  1. Fathers of children born out of wedlock may request mediation of their parental rights and responsibilities (in terms of the Children’s Act).
  1. Parental child abduction to and from South Africa.

If there is a dispute regarding the contact, guardianship or care (parental responsibilities and rights) of a minor child, the Office of the Family Advocate would be requested to investigate the welfare and best interest of the minor child involved. Often, they provide a report which is handed to the relevant Court for consideration. The Office of the Family Advocate is not employed by the parties involved. They work for the State ensuring that they are objective in their investigation and only have the child’s best interests at heart.

Steps involved

  1. Contact your nearest Family Advocate to request an enquiry or, mediation of your legal dispute.
  1. Upon receipt of the request, the Family Advocate institutes an inquiry during which he or she interviews you and the parties involved to determine your personal circumstances and the background of the matter. Where mediation is requested the Family Advocate will be the mediator
  1. The Family Counsellor then interviews the children separately, so as to enable such children to exercise their statutory right to be heard and to enable the Family Advocate to convey their views to the Court.
  1. The Family Advocate will communicate whatever decision taken, which significantly affects the welfare of the child, to such child.
  1. Upon completion of the enquiry or mediation process the Family Advocate will file a report for the Court and furnish copies to the parties or their lawyers.

In a typical custody dispute, a Family Advocate and social worker would be appointed to a case and investigate it. The social worker and the Family Advocate would consult with the parents (or parties involved in the dispute), visit their homes if necessary and obtain information from relevant parties etc. The Family Advocate and social worker would also speak to the child and may want to observe the child’s interaction with the parents. If there are other professionals, for example, a social worker or a psychologist who assessed the situation and provided a report, the Office of the Family Advocate would consider those documents as well and even consult with those experts before handing in their report.

References:

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Onderhoud – Nie net vir minderjariges nie

A1_BWanneer die woord “onderhoud” genoem word, dink baie mense aan vroue wat onderhoud vir minderjarige kinders eis of alternatiewelik, vroue wat vir onderhoud van hul gewese mans eis. In hierdie artikel sal ons egter ‘n ouer se onderhoudseis teen hul volwasse kinders bespreek.

Mike Larry het ‘n dagvaarding van die Onderhoudshof ontvang om drie weke later vir ‘n onderhoudsaak te verskyn, maar Mike het geen vrou of kinders nie en het verward gewonder of die Hof dalk ‘n fout gemaak het. Mike het die Onderhoudshof bygewoon om uit te vind of daar dalk ‘n fout in die dokumentasie was. Wat hy uitgevind het, het sy moed laat sak en kort daarna sy bankrekening ook.

Mike se vader, Jermaine, het ‘n aansoek voor die Onderhoudshof gebring vir onderhoud vanaf Mike, aangesien hy geen werk gehad het nie en dus geen inkomste nie. Mike het sy prokureur gevra of dit moontlik is, en die antwoord was bevestigend.

Volgens die Wet op Onderhoud 99 van 1998 het ouers en kinders ‘n wedersydse onderhoudsplig. ’n Kind het ‘n plig om sy ouers en grootouers te onderhou, maar dit is altyd onderworpe aan die reël dat ondersteuning eerste van die naaste familielid geëis moet word. Die basis van ‘n kind se plig om sy ouers te onderhou is gegrond in die gevoel van pligtigheid of filiale jammerte (met betrekking tot of vanaf ‘n seun of dogter). In sekere omstandighede kan selfs ‘n minderjarige kind ‘n plig hê om sy ouers te onderhou. ‘n Ouer wat onderhoud van ‘n kind eis, moet sy of haar behoefte bewys, asook die kind se vermoëns om hom/haar te ondersteun. ‘n Strenger maatstaf van nood is op ouers as kinders toegepas; hulpbehoewendheid van ‘n ouer is hiervoor ‘n vereiste.

Die owerhede het nie heeltemal duidelikheid oor bogenoemde nie. In Oosthuizen v Stanley het die Hof van die “kwaliteit en toestand van die persone wat ondersteun moet word” gepraat. In dieselfde saak is daarop gedui dat waar ‘n ouer ondersteun moet word, dit nie net die ouer se eie behoeftes is nie, maar ook dié van die ouer se afhanklikes wat in ag geneem moet word. In van Vuuren v Sam Rabie het die regter na dieselfde maatstaf verwys, maar het beklemtoon dat die ondersteuning van ouers tot die basiese behoeftes beperk moet word, naamlik kos, klere, skuiling, medisyne en sorg in tye van siekte. Ter ondersteuning hiervan het die Regter verwys na Surdus v Surdus en gesê dat, in die beoordeling van die kwaliteit en toestand van die persoon wat ondersteun moet word se lewe, dit hoofsaaklik sy huidige en nie sy vorige situasie is nie wat oorweeg moet word, maar dat die Regter sy eie diskresie moet uitoefen in die bepaling hiervan. Byvoorbeeld, ‘n ouer wat voorheen ryk was en nou deur moeilike tye gegaan het, moenie verplig wees om arm-manskos te eet nie. Daar is aangevoer dat die maatstaf van behoefte nie so streng vertolk moet word dat dit die hele konsep van ‘n wedersydse verpligting vernietig nie.

Die volgende kan ook oorweeg word wanneer ‘n ouer aansoek doen om onderhoud vanaf sy/haar kind:

1.  Broers en susters;

2.  Ekstra inkomste; en

3.  Lewenskwaliteit.

In terme van die gemenereg het ‘n buite-egtelike kind ‘n plig om sy/haar ma te onderhou, maar of die pa ondersteun moet word, moet nog beslis word. Daar kan egter aangevoer word dat ‘n buite-egtelike kind aanspreeklik kan wees om sy/haar pa te onderhou in terme van Artikel 16 van die Kinderwet 38 van 2005.

Ten slotte, as jy voel dat jy onregverdig vir ‘n onderhoudseis geteiken word, raadpleeg beslis jou prokureurs sodat hulle jou kan inlig oor jou regte en verantwoordelikhede.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies. (E&OE)

Maintenance – Not only for children

A1_BWhen the word “maintenance” is mentioned, many people think of women claiming maintenance for minor children, or alternatively, women claiming maintenance from their ex-husbands. However, in this article we will deal with parents claiming maintenance from their adult children.

Mike Larry received a summons from the Maintenance Court to appear three weeks later for a maintenance matter, however Mike had no children or wife and was quite confused, thinking that perhaps the Court had made a mistake. Mike attended the Maintenance Court in order to enquire whether there had been a mishap in the documentation. However, what Mike found out made his heart sink, and soon his bank account, too.

Mike’s father, Jermaine, had made an application at the Maintenance Court for maintenance from Mike as he had no job and therefore no income. Mike asked his lawyer whether this was even possible and the answer was affirmative.

According to the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, parents and children have a reciprocal duty of support. A child has a duty to support his/her parents and grandparents, but always subject to the rule that support must be claimed from one’s nearest relatives first. The basis of a child’s duty to support their parents is the sense of dutifulness or filial piety (relating to or due from a son or daughter). In certain circumstances even minor children may have to support their parents. As always, the criteria which must be present is a need on the part of the person to be maintained, and the ability to support on the part of the person from whom support is claimed. A parent who claims support from a child must prove his or her need and the child’s ability to support the parent. As mentioned above, a more stringent criterion of need is applied to parents than to children; indigence on the part of the parent is stated to be a requirement.

Our authorities are not entirely clear on this point. In Oosthuizen v Stanley the court spoke of “the quality and condition of the persons to be supported”. In the same case it was pointed out that where a parent must be supported it is not only the parent’s own needs but also those of the parent’s dependents which must be considered. In Van Vuuren v Sam Rabie, the Judge referred to the same criterion but stressed that the support of parents must be confined to the basic needs which are food, clothing, shelter, medicine and care in times of illness. Relying on the case of Surdus v Surdus, the Judge said that, in assessing the quality and condition of life of the person to be supported, it is primarily his present, not his past situation which is considered, but that in assessing these the Judge should exercise his discretion. For instance, a previously wealthy parent who has fallen on hard times should not be compelled to eat peasants’ food. It has been argued that the criterion of need should not be so narrowly interpreted here as to destroy the whole concept of a reciprocal obligation.

However, the following can also be considered when a parent makes an application for maintenance from his/her child:

1. Siblings;

2. Extra income; and

3. Quality of living.

In terms of the common law an extramarital child has a duty to support his/her mother, but whether or not he/she must support his/her father has yet to be decided. It can, however, be argued that an extramarital child would be liable to maintain his/her father in terms of Section 16 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.

In conclusion, if you feel you are being unfairly targeted for a maintenance claim, be sure to consult with your attorneys so they can inform you of your rights and responsibilities.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)