Gesinspolitiek en die ouer-kind verhouding
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/1998/v1i1a2903Abstract
The family-unit did, in one form or another occur since the beginning of man’s existence. The aim of the unit was to sire children and to provide for them until they reached maturity. To realise this provisional aim, a decision making process was required. The child and her parents’ individual interests can generate conflict where decisions have to be made regarding various questions, for example: which church the child should attend and or whether she should attend any church; which school a child should be enrolled in; with whom the child may associate and with whom not; if the child may use contraceptives, and whether an adolescent female may of her free will request or reject an abortion. Henceforth it must be kept in mind that the decision making process, i.e. family politics, is unique for each parent-child relationship.
Various social, economic and cultural factors can influence the handling of conflict in the decision making process. Furthermore, fundamental rights can influence the decision making process differently in respectively the common law parent-child relationship and the customary law parent-child relationship. Central to the latter situation is the fact that fundamental rights recognise individual rights, while customary law is founded in communalism. It is furthermore important to note that the nature of the parent-child relationship is not neutral, but is determined by historical and social elements within the community.
There are various statutory provisions in terms of which courts can intervene in the exercise of parental authority and can even terminate it, over and above the fact that the courts possess a common law competence as upper guardian. However, no law expressly grants the court the power to intervene in the parent-child relationship where conflict arises within the decision making process. The courts only have the authority to intervene in the parent-child relationship in the event of physical maltreatment or molestation of a child, in divorce proceedings, and where consent must be granted for a minor’s marriage. Even the family advocate is employed as mediator only in divorce matters. The court as common law upper guardian of minors, will only intervene in the parent-child relationship if it is of the opinion that such a step is in the interests of the child and it will therefor not be done lightly.
The current constitutional provisions regarding children in a multi-cultural society has brought about changes in the parent-child relationship. Reading together sections 9 and 28 of the 1996-constitution puts it beyond doubt that any child under the age of 18 years is a person possessing fundamental rights. The state is drawn in as a third party in the parent-child relationship and must ensure that the interests of the child, that is fundamental rights, are guaranteed. Section 28 of the 1996-constitution goes further than section 30 of the 1993-constitution and provides a description for the meaning of parental care. The reference to family care, parental care and appropriate alternative care in the 1996-constitution can be indicative of the fact that the changed relationships wherein children find themselves within the community (other than the nuclear family) are recognised. The constitutional provisions also causes a change of emphasis in the parent-child relationship. The emphasis changes from the parent’s rights and responsibilities to the rights that a child may claim. The child can enforce her rights against the state and her parents. The yardstick which determines whether the child is entitled to its constitutional rights, is in whether such a claim would be in the best interests of the child. If the child approaches the High Court as the common law upper guardian to enforce her rights, or to strike a balance in the decision making process, the state must supply the child with the necessary legal representation.
Due to the relevant constitutional provisions, the parent-child relationship can no longer be considered to be regulated merely by rules of authority, but the emphasis has shifted to the promotion of the child’s interests. The best interest of the child must thus be the guiding principle in all legal proceedings. It implies further that the South African family law approach to balancing the decision making process within the parent-child relationship has also changed
Downloads
References
BIBLIOGRAFIE
Boeke
B
Barnard, Cronjé en Olivier Persone- en Familiereg
Barnard AH, Cronjé DSP en Olivier PJJ Die Suid-Afrikaanse Persone- en Familiereg (Butterworths Durban 1986)
Bennet Human Rights
Bennet TW Human Rights and African Customary Law (Juta Kaapstad 1995)
Boberg Persons and the Family
Boberg PQR The Law of Persons and the Family (Juta Kaapstad 1977)
K
Kimathi Marraige and Family
Kimathi G Your Marriage and Family (IRS-Studiestuk no 58 Potchefstroom 1994)
M
Maré Gesinspolitiek
Maré C Gesinspolitiek en die Ouer-Kind Verhouding (LL M-Verhandeling PU vir CHO 1996)
McQuoid-Mason Street Law
McQuoid-Mason D Street Law: Practical Law of South African Students Vol 4 (Juta Kaapstad 1990)
N
Nhlapo Future of Family Law
Nhlapo RT "The Future of Family Law and the Law of Persons in South Africa: Is Modernization Compatible with Africanization?" in Van Aswegen A (red) Die Toekoms van die Suid-Afrikaanse Privaatreg (Univeriteit van Suid-Afrika Pretoria 1994) 10-25
O
Olivier Indigenous law
Olivier NJJ ea Indigenous Law (Durban 1994)
Olmesdahl Family Life
Olmesdahl MCJ "The Regulation of Family Life" in Rycroft A (red) Race and the Law in South Africa (Juta Kaapstad 1987) 93-106
R
Robinson Beskerming van Kinders
Robinson JA Die Beskerming van Kinders in 'n Menseregteakte in Suid-Afrika: QUO OPERTET NOS VADERE? (Sentrale Publikasies Potchefstroom 1993)
S
Spiro Parent and Child Spiro E Law of Parent and Child 4e uitg (Juta Kaapstad 1985)
V
Van der Vyver en Joubert Persone- en Familiereg
Van der Vyver JD en Joubert DJ Persone- en Familiereg 3e uitg (Juta Kaapstad 1985)
Visser en Potgieter Family Law
Visser PJ en Potgieter JM Family Law: Cases and Materials (Juta Kenwyn 1994)
Visser en Potgieter Familiereg
Visser PJ en Potgieter JM Inleiding tot die Familiereg (Juta Kenwyn 1994)
Tydskrifartikels
Bekker JC "How Compatible is African Customary Law with Human Rights? Some Preliminary Observations" 1994 THRHR 440-447
Burman S "Illegitimacy and the African Family in a Changing South Africa" 1991 AJ 36 51
Costa A "Polygamy, other Personal Relationships and the Constitution" 1994 De Rebus 914-918
De Koker JY "Die Status van die Inheemse reg in die Suid-Afrikaanse Regsisteem na 27 April 1994" 1996 TRW 112-122
De Vos P "Same-sex Marriage, the rights to equality and the South African Constitution" 1996 SAPR/PL 355-382
De Vos P "The Economic and Sosial Rights of Children and South Africa's Transitional Constitution" 1995 SAPR/PL 233-259
Dlamini CRM "The Role of Customary Law inMeeting Social Needs" 1991 AJ 71-85
Du Plessis LM en Gouws A "The Gender Implications of the Final Constitution (with particular reference to the bill of rights)" 1996 SAPR/PL 472-489
Govender K "Fraser v Children's Court, Pretoria North and Others" 1997 Human Rights and Constitutional Law Journal of Southern Africa 28-29
Heaton J "Some General Remarks on the Concept 'Best Interest of the Child' 1990 THRHR 95-99
Kerr AJ "Customary Law, Fundamental Rights, and the Constitution" 1994 SALJ 720¬Nhlapo RT "The African Family and Women's Rights: Friends or Foes?" 1991 AJ 135-146
Robinson JA "Kinderregte in die Nuwe Grondwet" 1996 Woord en Daad 9-10
Sonnekus JC "Die Onwelkome Vryer en die Regsweg van die Onstoke Vader" 1992 THRHR 649-658
Wolhuter L "Horizontality in the Interim and Final Constitutions" 1996 SAPR/PL 512-527
Hofsake
B v S 1993 2 SA 211 (W)
Calitz v Calitz 1939 AD 56
Coetzee v Meintjies 1976 1 SA 257 (T)
Deijl v Deijl 1966 4 SA 260 (R)
Ex parte Kedar and Another 1993 1 SA 242 (W)
G v Superintendent, Groote Schuur Hospital, and Others 1992 2 SA 594 (OK)
Gordon v Barnard 1977 1 SA 887 (K)
H v I 1985 3 SA 237 (K)
Kastan v Kastan 1985 3 SA 235 (K)
L v H 1990 2 SA 594 (OK)
McCall v McCall 1994 3 SA 201 (K)
Meyer v Van Niekerk 1976 1 SA 252 (T)
Msweli v Msweli 1985-6 AC (N-E)
S v S 1993 2 SA 200 (W)
Van Erk v Holmer 1992 2 SA 636 (W)
Van Rooyen v Van Rooyen 1994 2 SA 325 (W)
Wetgewing
Huwelikswet 25 van 1961
KwaZulu-Natal Wetboek 16 van 1985
Prok R151 van 1987
Wet op Bemiddeling in Sekere Egskeidingsaangeleenthede 24 van 1987
Wet op die Meerderjarigheidsouderdom 57 van 1972
Wet op Egskeiding 70 van 1979
Wet op Huweliksaangeleenthede 37 van 1953
Wet op Keuse oor die beëindiging van Swangerskap 92 van 1996
Wet op Kindersorg 74 van 1983
Wet op Voogdy 192 van 1993
Wet op Voorkoming van Gesinsgeweld 133 van 1993
Wet op Vrugafdrywing en Sterilisasie 2 van 1975
Wysigingswet op Bewysreg 45 van 1988
Wysigingswet op Kindersorg 86 van 1991
Bydraes by Konferensies
Fraser Moleketi G Keynote Address
Fraser Moleketi G "Keynote Address on Child Abuse as a Priority Crime" lesing gelewer by die Werkswinkel oor Child Abuse, 17-18 Oktober 1996 Mmabatho 1-6
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 C Maré
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.