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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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]

Family Law Service – Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf – Finding the best lawyer for you.

Choosing the right law firm (Attorney or Advocate) can be a daunting task in the intricate landscape of legal matters. Whether you’re facing a complex litigation case, navigating corporate law, or seeking legal assistance for personal issues, the decision of which law firm to engage is crucial. At the firm Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf, we understand the significance of this decision, and we aim to demonstrate why choosing our firm can make all the difference.

Expertise and Specialisation

One of the primary reasons for choosing our law firm is our expertise and specialisation in diverse legal areas. As you can see from this website, Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf practices in various fields of law. This breadth of expertise ensures that no matter the nature of your legal issue, you will have access to knowledgeable and experienced professionals who can provide tailored solutions.

Personalised Approach

We recognise that every client and every case is unique. That’s why we prioritise a personalised approach to legal representation. From the moment you engage our services, we take the time to understand your specific needs, concerns, and objectives. This allows us to develop strategies and solutions customised to your circumstances, ensuring the best possible outcome for your case.

Commitment to Excellence

At Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf, excellence is not just a goal – it’s our standard. We are committed to providing our clients with the highest quality legal services, characterized by thorough research, meticulous attention to detail, and strategic thinking. Our track record of success speaks for itself, with numerous satisfied clients who have benefited from our dedication to excellence.

Responsive and Accessible

Legal matters can be stressful and overwhelming, so we prioritise responsiveness and accessibility. Our team is readily available to address your questions, concerns, and needs throughout your case. Whether you prefer to communicate via phone, WhatsApp, email, or in-person meetings, we are here to provide you with the support and guidance you need when you need it.

Cost-Effective Solutions

Legal representation shouldn’t break the bank. That’s why we are committed to providing cost-effective solutions that deliver value for our clients. We offer transparent billing practices and strive to minimise unnecessary expenses wherever possible, ensuring you receive top-notch legal services without the hefty price tag.

Ethical and Professional Conduct

Integrity and ethics are at the core of everything we do. Our team adheres to the highest standards of professional conduct, ensuring your case is handled with the utmost integrity, honesty, and discretion. You can trust that your legal matters will be handled with care and respect, and your confidentiality will always be protected. In conclusion, choosing the right law firm can significantly impact the outcome of your legal matters. At Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf, we offer expertise, specialisation, personalised service, commitment to excellence, responsiveness, cost-effective solutions, and ethical conduct. These qualities set us apart and make us the ideal choice for clients seeking top-notch legal representation. Contact us today to learn how we can assist you with your legal needs. If you require an Advocate Law Firm to assist you in your legal matter, feel free to contact us using the following details:

• • Tel.: 021 111 0090
  • Email.: [email protected]

The Firm: Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf

Trust Account Advocate. Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf is a registered firm with the Legal Practice Council of South Africa. It holds offices in Cape Town. However represents clients all over South Africa. If required, he would travel out to your province to attend to you matter. Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf is a Trust Account practice, which means it may take instructions directly from members of the public. This is compared to referral advocates who may not take instructions directly from members of the public. Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf’s practice allows clients to deposit money into their Trust Account. To do so, it needs to hold a valid fidelity fund certificate, which it does. Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf may appear on its client’s behalf in all courts in the Republic of South Africa. These include the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, all High Court and magistrates courts in all provinces in South Africa. The services you may instruct the firm of Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf to represent you in are as follows:

High Court matters

• Civil claim surrounding money;
• Interdicts;
• Divorces (Opposed and unopposed);
• Child Custody and guardianship disputes;
• Relocation of minor children;
• Various criminal matters;
• Minor children surname changes;
• Appeals and Reviews; and
• Other matters.

Magistrates Court matters

• Civil claim surrounding money;
• Various criminal matters;
• Interdicts;
• Maintenance Court matters;
• Divorces Court matters (Opposed and unopposed)’
• Children’s Court matter; and
• Other matters.

Constitutional Court

• Appeals

Supreme Court of Appeal

• Appeals and Reviews

Consult with, or Instruct Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf

If you would like to have a legal advice consultation with Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf, feel free to use the Our Lawyer online appointment form by clicking here. Should you already have consulted with Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf and wish to mandate and instruct the firm, kindly proceed with completing the mandate form using this mandate link. We service clients throughout South Africa. These include: Cape Town Rustenburg Kimberley East London Nelspruit Polokwane Pietermaritzburg Bloemfontein Port Elizabeth Pretoria Durban Johannesburg

There is NO Child Maintenance Payment Holiday during the National Lockdown Period! If the other parent is refusing to pay child support during the National Lockdown period – what can you do?

  South Africa is now in a state of National Lockdown. As things stand at present, children are not to be moved between homes during this period. This is to limit the spread of COVID-19 / Coronavirus. A lot has been written on the topic of moving children during the lockdown period by co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights. Have a look at a few of these articles written by Our Lawyer on this topic:

• Parental responsibilities and care during the coronavirus lockdown in South Africa – The uncertain questions that cannot and should not be answered today (24 March 2020)
• Co-parenting during the South African National Lockdown period – What does the law say? – The good and the abuse (4 April 2020)
• Latest regulations regarding the movement of children during the National Lockdown – 30 March 2020 (6 April 2020)

Update: 07 April 2020

Parents and lawyers should focus on what is best for the child

Complaints from parents where the other parent does not want to pay child maintenance during the lockdown period

What is child maintenance usually for?

• Groceries, Water and Electricity, Laundry
• Telephone, Internet, airtime
• Domestic Worker, Garden Services
• Clothing, shoes
• Transport costs, vehicle maintenance, repairs
• Medical aid and medical expenses not covered by the medical aid
• Holidays, Entertainment, Recreation, DSTV, Netflix
• Reading material (books, newspaper etc)
• Pets food, litter, Vet
• School projects, assignments
• School fees, Summer and winter uniforms, shoes
• Extra-Mural (incl. clothes), stationery, textbooks, sports equipment (incl. clothing)

Child maintenance payment scenarios

1. The first scenario applies where there is a maintenance order in place. This could have been made by the maintenance court, or the divorce court when the parties divorced. Should a maintenance court have made the order, it would usually mean there was a complaint about non-payment or paying too little. This is not always the case. Either way, the court making the maintenance order would have had to be satisfied that the order is in the child’s best interest.
2. Then there is the second scenario where there is no maintenance order in place. The parents were never divorced and neither party took the other to the maintenance court. The parties pay maintenance based on an agreement they have, or the paying parent just pays as he or she feels. In the scenario, no court determined whether the amount being paid is fair or not.

Is Non-compliance with a Maintenance Order allowed?

Can parents agree to relax the maintenance order during the National Lockdown period despite the Maintenance Order being in place?

What to do when there is no maintenance order in place?

Noncompliance with maintenance orders and non-payment

The relevant regulations in respect of the maintenance court during the lockdown period

• First time applications for maintenance will only be dealt with if complete information is supplied in respect of required names, surname, telephone or cellular phone number, employment or business address, banking details of the Respondent; and
• Application in respect of enforcement of maintenance orders