B.S v M.J.J.D.J and Another (2024/061371) [2024] ZAGPPHC 694 (17 July 2024)

B.S v M.J.J.D.J and Another (2024/061371) [2024] ZAGPPHC 694 (17 July 2024)

The Court found that the Children’s Act specifically empowers caregivers to consent to medical treatment for children under 12 years, and that the applicant’s consent is not required in these circumstances. The applicant’s refusal to consent was found to be unreasonable, as it was not based on the child’s best interests but rather on extraneous factors and speculation. The medical decisions were made by a specialist paediatrician approved by the Children’s Court, and the applicant had opportunities to obtain a second opinion but did not do so. The relief sought, including the appointment of a curator ad litem, was not justified and would interfere with ongoing foster care proceedings. The...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 694
Parties
Applicant: B[...] S[...]; Respondent: M[...] J[...] J[...] D[...] J[...]; Respondent: D[...] D[...] J[...]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2024
Case Number
2024/061371
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant on Scale B.
Judges
de Vos
Legal Topics
Medical Consent for Minors, Caregiver Authority, Children S Act Section 32, Children S Act Section 129, Foster Care Proceedings
Family and Children Medical Consent for Minors Caregiver Authority Children S Act Section 32 Children S Act Section 129 Foster Care Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B[...] S[...]

Applicant

M[...] J[...] J[...] D[...] J[...]

Respondent

D[...] D[...] J[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether caregivers require the biological mother's consent to make medical decisions for a child under four years old.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's refusal to consent to medical treatment was reasonable.
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of a curator ad litem is justified in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Children’s Act specifically empowers caregivers to consent to medical treatment for children under 12 years, and that the applicant’s consent is not required in these circumstances. The applicant’s refusal to consent was found to be unreasonable, as it was not based on the child’s best interests but rather on extraneous factors and speculation. The medical decisions were made by a specialist paediatrician approved by the Children’s Court, and the applicant had opportunities to obtain a second opinion but did not do so. The relief sought, including the appointment of a curator ad litem, was not justified and would interfere with ongoing foster care proceedings. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant on Scale B.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs on Scale B.