M.A.M v A.V (born N) (2901/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 228 (23 November 2010)

M.A.M v A.V (born N) (2901/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 228 (23 November 2010)

The court found that, on the common cause facts, the applicant had been recognised as M's father by both the respondent and the child for nearly ten years, and had exercised full parental responsibilities and rights. Excluding the applicant from the definition of 'parent' would not serve M's best interests, which are paramount under section 28 of the Constitution. The exclusionary provision in section 1 of the Children's Act must be interpreted in light of constitutional principles, and cannot be mechanically applied to override the child's rights. The respondent cannot rely on section 22 to avoid co-parenting, as section 33 applies to co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights,...

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 228
Parties
Applicant: M A M; Respondent: A V (born N)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2010
Case Number
2901/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Points in Limine
Outcome
The respondent's points in limine are dismissed. The applicant is recognised as a co-holder of parental responsibilities and rights. The respondent can be compelled to enter into a parenting plan with the applicant. Costs are reserved for later determination.
Judges
Cloete
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Definition of Parent, Parenting Plan, Children S Act, Constitutional Interpretation
Family and Children Parental Responsibilities and Rights Definition of Parent Parenting Plan Children S Act Constitutional Interpretation

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M A M

Applicant

A V (born N)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Points in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to rely on the exclusionary provision in the definition of 'parent' under section 1 of the Children's Act.
  2. 2 If the applicant is declared a 'parent' with full parental rights, whether the respondent can be compelled to enter into a parenting plan with the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural approach adopted by the applicant was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, on the common cause facts, the applicant had been recognised as M's father by both the respondent and the child for nearly ten years, and had exercised full parental responsibilities and rights. Excluding the applicant from the definition of 'parent' would not serve M's best interests, which are paramount under section 28 of the Constitution. The exclusionary provision in section 1 of the Children's Act must be interpreted in light of constitutional principles, and cannot be mechanically applied to override the child's rights. The respondent cannot rely on section 22 to avoid co-parenting, as section 33 applies to co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights,...

Court Disposition

The respondent's points in limine are dismissed. The applicant is recognised as a co-holder of parental responsibilities and rights. The respondent can be compelled to enter into a parenting plan with the applicant. Costs are reserved for later determination.

Orders

  • The respondent is not entitled to rely on the exclusionary provision in the definition of 'parent' in section 1 of the Children's Act.
  • The respondent can be compelled by this court to enter into a parenting plan with the applicant in respect of M.