Divorces in South Africa – A simple guide to understanding how the legal system on divorces works

Posted on 11 February 2025 by Telelaw

[caption id="attachment_10811" align="alignnone" width="713"] Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Canada – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption]
I want to relocate from South Africa to Canada with my minor child. The other parent does not want my child to relocate to Canada. What can I do?
Canada is a popular destination to emigrate to. People emigrate from South Africa for many reasons. It ranges from better employment opportunities, family relations, or for a better standard of living. Whatever the reason a parent wants to relocate to Canada, if a minor child will be joining that parent and also relocating to Canada, then the parent remaining in South Africa’s consent would usually be required. Let us unpack the legal issues a parent may encounter when wanting to emigrate to Canada. Before we do so, let us list the various cities and towns in Canada to which you may want to relocate: Alberta, Banff, Brooks, Calgary, Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, Jasper, Lake Louise, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Red Deer, Saint Albert, British Columbia, Barkerville, Burnaby, Campbell River, Chilliwack, Courtenay, Cranbrook, Dawson Creek, Delta, Esquimalt, Fort Saint James, Fort Saint John, Hope, Kamloops, Kelowna, Kimberley, Kitimat, Langley, Nanaimo, Nelson, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Oak Bay, Penticton, Powell River, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Quesnel, Revelstoke, Rossland, Trail, Vancouver, Vernon, Victoria, West Vancouver, White Rock, Manitoba, Brandon, Churchill, Dauphin, Flin Flon, Kildonan, Saint Boniface, Swan River, Thompson, Winnipeg, York Factory, New Brunswick, Bathurst, Caraquet, Dalhousie, Fredericton, Miramichi, Moncton, Saint John, Newfoundland and Labrador, Argentia, Bonavista, Channel-Port aux Basques, Corner Brook, Ferryland, Gander, Grand Falls–Windsor, Happy Valley–Goose Bay, Harbour Grace, Labrador City, Placentia, Saint Anthony, St. John’s, Wabana, Northwest Territories, Fort Smith, Hay River, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, Yellowknife, Nova Scotia, Baddeck, Digby, Glace Bay, Halifax, Liverpool, Louisbourg, Lunenburg, Pictou, Port Hawkesbury, Springhill, Sydney, Yarmouth, Nunavut, Iqaluit, Ontario, Bancroft, Barrie, Belleville, Brampton, Brantford, Brockville, Burlington, Cambridge, Chatham, Chatham-Kent, Cornwall, Elliot Lake, Etobicoke, Fort Erie, Fort Frances, Gananoque, Guelph, Hamilton, Iroquois Falls, Kapuskasing, Kawartha Lakes, Kenora, Kingston, Kirkland Lake, Kitchener, Laurentian Hills, London, Midland, Mississauga, Moose Factory, Moosonee, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, North Bay, North York, Oakville, Orillia, Oshawa, Ottawa, Parry Sound, Perth, Peterborough, Picton, Port Colborne, Saint Catharines, Saint Thomas, Sarnia-Clearwater, Sault Sainte Marie, Scarborough, Simcoe, Stratford, Sudbury, Temiskaming Shores, Thorold, Thunder Bay, Timmins, Toronto, Trenton, Waterloo, Welland, West Nipissing, Windsor, Woodstock, York, Prince Edward Island, Borden, Cavendish, Charlottetown, Souris, Summerside, Quebec, Asbestos, Baie-Comeau, Beloeil, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Chambly, Charlesbourg, Châteauguay, Chibougamau, Côte-Saint-Luc, Dorval, Gaspé, Gatineau, Granby, Havre-Saint-Pierre, Hull, Jonquière, Kuujjuaq, La Salle, La Tuque, Lachine, Laval, Lévis, Longueuil, Magog, Matane, Montreal, Montréal-Nord, Percé, Port-Cartier, Quebec, Rimouski, Rouyn-Noranda, Saguenay, Saint-Eustache, Saint-Hubert, Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, Sainte-Foy, Sainte-Thérèse, Sept-Îles, Sherbrooke, Sorel-Tracy, Trois-Rivières, Val-d’Or, Waskaganish, Saskatchewan, Batoche, Cumberland House, Estevan, Flin Flon, Moose Jaw, Prince Albert, Regina, Saskatoon, Uranium City, Yukon, Dawson, Watson Lake, Whitehorse. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-cities-and-towns-in-Canada-2038873)
Why do I require the other parent’s Consent to relocate to Canada?
According to South African law, if you are a co-holder of parental responsibilities and rights over your minor child, you must consent to your child leaving South Africa. In this case, relocating to Canada. Here we refer to section 18 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. The entire provision is as follows: 18 Parental responsibilities and rights (1) A person may have either full or specific parental responsibilities and rights in respect of a child. (2) The parental responsibilities and rights that a person may have in respect of a child, include the responsibility and the right- (a) to care for the child; (b) to maintain contact with the child; (c) to act as guardian of the child; and (d) to contribute to the maintenance of the child. (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a parent or other person who acts as guardian of a child must- (a) administer and safeguard the child’s property and property interests; (b) assist or represent the child in administrative, contractual and other legal matters; or (c) give or refuse any consent required by law in respect of the child, including- (i) consent to the child’s marriage; (ii) consent to the child’s adoption; (iii) consent to the child’s departure or removal from the Republic; (iv) consent to the child’s application for a passport; and (v) consent to the alienation or encumbrance of any immovable property of the child. (4) Whenever more than one person has guardianship of a child, each one of them is competent, subject to subsection (5), any other law or any order of a competent court to the contrary, to exercise independently and without the Consent of the other any right or responsibility arising from such guardianship. (5) Unless a competent court orders otherwise, the Consent of all the persons that have guardianship of a child is necessary in respect of matters set out in subsection (3)(c). Now let us explain what Parental Responsibilities and Rights are.
What are Parental Responsibilities and Rights of a parent in relation to a child?
As can be seen from section 18(2) of the Children’s Act, when we refer to Parental Responsibilities and Rights, we refer to the following: (a) to care for the child; (b) to maintain contact with the child; (c) to act as guardian of the child; and (d) to contribute to the maintenance of the child. Therefore, if a parent has parental responsibilities and rights over a minor child, and accordingly, rights of guardianship, their Consent is required when it comes to issues of guardianship. As seen from section 18(3)(c) of the Children’s Act above, both parents’ Consent is required should a minor child depart from the Republic of South Africa. In this case, to emigrate to Canada. Even if the minor child only wants to go for a short holiday to Canada, both guardians’ Consent would be required.
When would the other parent be seen as a guardian in the case of a relocation matter to Canada?
It must be noted that not all parents are legal guardians over their minor children. We should therefore distinguish between married or divorced parents and parents who were never married. As you would see below, usually married, or divorced parents’ Consent would be required for a minor child to relocate or emigrate to Canada. However, that does not automatically apply to parents who were never married. This could be because the child could have been born from a brief encounter and never met his or her father. It would not make sense that a parent who never met his or her 15-year-old child, should give Consent for relocation to Canada.
Mother’s Consent for relocation of the minor child to Canada
Section 19 of the Children’s Act deals with the Parental responsibilities and rights of mothers. It states the following: 19 Parental responsibilities and rights of mothers (1) The biological mother of a child, whether married or unmarried, has full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child. (2) If- (a) the biological mother of a child is an unmarried child who does not have guardianship in respect of the child; and (b) the biological father of the child does not have guardianship in respect of the child, the guardian of the child’s biological mother is also the guardian of the child. (3) This section does not apply in respect of a child who is the subject of a surrogacy agreement. As seen from section 19(1) of the Children’s Act, in most cases involving the relocation of a minor child to Canada, the mother’s Consent is required as she has full parental responsibilities and rights over the minor child.
Married father’s Consent for the relocation of the minor child to Canada
Section 20 of the Children’s Act deals with Parental responsibilities and rights of married fathers. It states the following: 20 Parental responsibilities and rights of married fathers The biological father of a child has full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child- (a) if he is married to the child’s mother; or (b) if he was married to the child’s mother at (i) the time of the child’s conception; (ii) the time of the child’s birth; or (iii) any time between the child’s conception and birth. As can be seen from sections 20 (a) and (b) of the Children’s Act, if the father and the mother were married, or are married, then his Consent is required for the minor child to relocate to Canada. Of course, an exception to this would be should a court of law order otherwise. This would be the case should the parents be divorced and the divorce court ordered that only the mother may act as guardian. Next, we deal with the issue of an unmarried father’s Consent to relocate a minor child to Canada.
Consent of unmarried fathers for the relocation of their minor children to Canada.
Section 21 of the Children’s Act deals with parental responsibilities and rights of unmarried fathers. The section states the following: 21 Parental responsibilities and rights of unmarried fathers (1) The biological father of a child who does not have parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child in terms of section 20, acquires full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child- (a) if at the time of the child’s birth he is living with the mother in a permanent life-partnership; or (b) if he, regardless of whether he has lived or is living with the mother- (i) consents to be identified or successfully applies in terms of section 26 to be identified as the child’s father or pays damages in terms of customary law; (ii) contributes or has attempted in good faith to contribute to the child’s upbringing for a reasonable period; and (iii) contributes or has attempted in good faith to contribute towards expenses in connection with the maintenance of the child for a reasonable period. (2) This section does not affect the duty of a father to contribute towards the maintenance of the child. (3) (a) If there is a dispute between the biological father referred to in subsection (1) and the biological mother of a child with regard to the fulfilment by that father of the conditions set out in subsection (1) (a) or (b), the matter must be referred for mediation to a family advocate, social worker, social service professional or other suitably qualified person. (b) Any party to the mediation may have the outcome of the mediation reviewed by a court. (4) This section applies regardless of whether the child was born before or after the commencement of this Act. As can be seen from the latter sections, a father of a child born out of wedlock does not automatically have parental responsibilities and rights over his minor child. He may however acquire those parental responsibilities and rights over his minor child if he is materially involved in the child’s life. That would be where the father and the mother were in a permanent life partnership when the child was born or he is meaningfully involved in the child’s life, as outlined above. We shall not go into much detail regarding that. However, in most cases, if the father had regular contact with the child and paid child support, he would have acquired parental responsibilities and rights over the minor child.
What do you do if the other parent does not want to consent to the minor child relocating to Canada?
Suppose the other parent also has parental responsibilities and rights over the minor child, and he or she does not want to consent to the relocation of the minor child to Canada, then in such a case, the Court needs to be approached. Here I refer you back to section 18(5) of the Children’s Act referred to above where it states: (5) Unless a competent court orders otherwise, the Consent of all the persons that have guardianship of a child is necessary in respect of matters set out in subsection (3)(c). Therefore, after your Court Application has been launched an both sides have been heard, the Court would make the necessary Order. If you are successful in your application for the relocation of your minor children to Canada, then the Court will make an Order similar to that which is shown below.
[caption id="attachment_10810" align="alignnone" width="697"] Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Canada – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption] [caption id="attachment_10811" align="alignnone" width="717"] Relocation consent Court Order for minor child to Canada – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption]

Posted on 11 February 2025 by Telelaw

Claiming Child Maintenance from Grandparents – What does the law say?
Many people are of the view that child maintenance may only be claimed by the parents of a child. They have that view even in the case where the parents cannot afford to maintain the child, but the grandparents can. At the outset, we state that the latter view is incorrect. If parents cannot afford to maintain a child, a claim for maintenance may be made against both the paternal and maternal grandparents of the child involved. This applies whether or not the child was born in or out of wedlock. Prior to 2004, or before the case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C), the law allowed parents to claim maintenance for their minor children from maternal and paternal grandparents, as long as the child was born within wedlock, or out of a marriage. If the child was born out of wedlock, then in such a case, the parent could only claim from the maternal grandparents. And not the paternal grandparents. This was clearly unfair and unconstitutional and something that many people would have issues with. In 2004, Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf had a client who wanted to claim maintenance from the maternal grandparents of her minor child, but the law did not allow for it. He and his client was not happy with the legal position and took the matter to the Western Cape High Court (the Provisional Division of the Cape). Adv. Abduroaf cited the Maintenance Office of Simon’s Town Maintenance Court and the paternal grandparents. The matter was argued, and the Court found in favour of Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf and his client. The case opened many doors for mothers in similar positions. Below we discuss the case. Due to Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf’s academic background in Constitutional law and willingness to fight for his client, he challenged the legal position.
Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others
2004 (2) SA 56 (C)
The well-known case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) was a special one. Not because Adv. Abduroaf and his client were successful, but the effect of the case meant that children who could never claim maintenance from paternal grandparents if they were born out of wedlock could do so due to the case. The case also brought about widespread attention to the fact that a parent can claim maintenance from grandparents when the parents cannot afford to support the child on their own.
The following is extracted from the case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) :
[6] The Motan decision is generally accepted as authority for the assertion that the paternal grandparents of an extramarital child do not owe a duty of support to the child. The interpretation of the common law in Motan and the resultant denial of a duty of support by the paternal grandparents of an E extra-marital child has, even prior to the present constitutional dispensation, been widely criticised by South African writers. Van den Heever Breach of Promise and Seduction in South African Law (1954) at 70 says the following: ‘It is submitted that the decision is so patently wrong that it should be reconsidered; for it is based on legislative considerations and methods, which are, moreover, unsound. It is contrary to public policy and humanity and should, if necessary, be rectified by the Legislature.’
This is what Adv. Abduroaf argued:
[7] Mr Abduroaf, who appears for the applicant, submitted that the common-law rule as interpreted in Motan, violates the extra-marital child’s constitutional rights to equality and dignity enshrined in ss 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 (the Constitution) and is contrary to the best interest of the child (see s 28(2) of the Constitution). He accordingly submits that the common-law rule is unreasonable and unjustifiable and should be declared unconstitutional and invalid.
Adv. Abduroaf further submitted:
[14] Mr Abduroaf submitted that the constitutional values embodied in ss 9, 10 and 28(2) of the Constitution, dictate that the common-law rule as enunciated in Motan, be developed by imposing a duty of support upon the paternal grandparents of an extra-marital child in the event of the natural parents of such child being unable to support the child. The said sections of the Constitution provide: ‘9 (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. (3) The State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of ss (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in ss (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair. 10 Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected. . . . 28 (2) A child’s best interest is of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.’
The Ruling in Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C)
At the end of the matter, the Court made the following ruling: [29] In the result I make the following order:
It is declared that the second and third respondents have a legal duty to support the extra-marital child of the applicant, J, born on 7 January 2003, to the same extent to which the fourth and fifth respondents are liable to maintain the said child.
The first respondent is directed to take the necessary steps for an enquiry to be held in terms of s 10 of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, with a view to enquiring into the provision of maintenance by the second and third respondents for the said extra-marital child of the applicant.
No order as to costs is made.
Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) [caption id="attachment_10745" align="alignnone" width="300"] Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption]

Posted on 11 February 2025 by Telelaw

Related Post

Do you require a video legal advice consultation?