South Africa Case Law

FCP v STC and Another (A 46/2024 ; 1762021/000227)

FCP v STC and Another (A 46/2024 ; 1762021/000227) [2025] ZAWCHC 68; [2025] 2 All SA 415 (WCC) (29 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A46/2024 ; 1762021/000227

Judges

Gordon-Turner, Ndita

The court held that a children’s court order terminating parental rights and responsibilities under section 28 of the Children’s Act does not terminate the parent’s maintenance obligation. The duty to support a child is a constitutional, statutory, and common law obligation that persists regardless of parental rights status. Section 15 of the Maintenance Act codifies this duty, and the Children’s Act does not repeal or override it. The maintenance court retains jurisdiction to enforce maintenance payments, and the child’s right to support cannot be extinguished except in cases of adoption. Th…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Obligations
• Termination Of Parental Responsibilities
• Children S Act Interpretation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Jurisdiction Of Maintenance Court

TT and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (20/43969)

TT and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (20/43969) [2023] ZAGPJHC 41 (25 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/43969

Judge

Dippenaar

The court found that the Department had abandoned its application for leave to appeal in respect of orders 1–7 and 12, and that there were no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons to grant leave for those orders. Regarding orders 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13, the court was not persuaded that reasonable prospects of success existed, but concluded that compelling reasons were present due to the constitutional and statutory importance of the issues raised, including the interpretation of the Children’s Act and Adoption Guidelines. The administration of justice required consideration by th…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal Standard
• Children S Act Interpretation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Adoption Guidelines
• Costs In Appeal
• Superior Courts Act

TT and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (20/43969)

TT and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (20/43969) [2022] ZAGPJHC 931; [2023] 1 All SA 803 (GJ); 2023 (2) SA 565 (GJ) (19 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/43969

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that the Department and its social workers unlawfully interfered with the adoptions of B and L by misinterpreting and misapplying the Children’s Act and the Guidelines, causing unjustified delays and breaching the constitutional rights of the applicants and the minor children. The Department’s Practice Guidelines on National Adoption were declared invalid as they were inconsistent with the Constitution and the Children’s Act, imposed requirements not contemplated by law, and were promulgated ultra vires. The Department’s refusal to issue a recommendation letter for B’s adoptio…

Source excerpt

• Adoption Procedure
• Children S Act Interpretation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Administrative Review Under Paja
• Privacy And Confidentiality
• Doctrine Of Legality

K.H.D and Another v Head of Department of Social Development, Gauteng and Others (30205/2019, 55642/2019)

K.H.D and Another v Head of Department of Social Development, Gauteng and Others (30205/2019, 55642/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 388 (17 June 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30205/2019, 55642/2019

Judge

Ranchod

The High Court held that a section 239(1)(d) letter under the Children’s Act may be a non-recommendation or even be absent, and the Children’s Court still has jurisdiction.

• Adoption Procedure
• Children S Act Interpretation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Jurisdiction Of Children S Court
• Statutory Interpretation
• Adoption-procedure

Ex Parte: Molantoa obo R & M and Others (3198/18)

Ex Parte: Molantoa obo R & M and Others (3198/18) [2018] ZAGPPHC 953 (26 September 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3198/18

Judge

Tuchten

The court held that the appointment of curators ad litem to assist children in actions against the Road Accident Fund is not required as a matter of law where an adult family member acts as care-giver and there is no conflict of interest or other good ground. Section 32 of the Children's Act empowers such care-givers to assist children in litigation, and the mere fact that the care-giver is not a biological parent, or is poor or ill-educated, does not justify the appointment of a curator. Each case must be determined on its own facts, and a curator will only be appointed where the best intere…

Source excerpt

• Curator Ad Litem Appointment
• Children S Act Interpretation
• Road Accident Fund Claims
• Best Interests Of Child
• Guardianship Applications

Justice Alliance of South Africa and Another v Minister of Social Development, Western Cape and Others (20806/2013)

Justice Alliance of South Africa and Another v Minister of Social Development, Western Cape and Others (20806/2013) [2015] ZAWCHC 120; [2015] 4 All SA 467 (WCC) (31 August 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20806/2013

Judge

Salie-Hlophe

High Court declaratory and mandatory relief on the Children’s Act upheld the status of four former schools as child and youth care centres and ordered strategy production.

• Children S Act Interpretation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Provincial And National Strategy
• Child And Youth Care Centres
• Judicial Review
• Constitutional Rights Of Children

S.D.I v K.L.V.C and Another (11137/2013)

S.D.I v K.L.V.C and Another (11137/2013) [2014] ZAKZDHC 11 (4 April 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

11137/2013

Judge

Gabriel A J

The court found that the applicant met all three requirements of section 21(1)(b) of the Children’s Act: he consented to be identified as the father, contributed or attempted in good faith to contribute to the child’s upbringing for a reasonable period, and contributed or attempted in good faith to contribute towards expenses in connection with the maintenance of the child. The evidence showed actual and good faith contributions, including financial support, personal involvement, and offers to pay maintenance. The respondent’s removal of the child from South Africa to England and Wales withou…

Source excerpt

• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Children S Act Interpretation
• International Child Abduction
• Hague Convention
• Unmarried Fathers Rights

Centre for Child Law v Minister of Social Development (21122/13)

Centre for Child Law v Minister of Social Development (21122/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 305; 2014 (1) SA 468 (GNP) (30 October 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21122/13

Judge

J W Louw

Section 230(3) of the Children's Act does not preclude a child from being adoptable merely because the child has a parent or guardian and the person seeking to adopt is the spouse or permanent domestic life-partner of the child's parent or guardian. The court found that abandonment or lack of contact by the non-custodian parent suffices for adoptability, and that the Act expressly permits step-parent adoption. Section 242 does not automatically terminate all parental responsibilities and rights of the guardian upon such adoption, as the court has discretion to order otherwise. This interpreta…

Source excerpt

• Adoption
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Step Parent Adoption
• Children S Act Interpretation

Jones v De Lange

Jones v De Lange [2011] ZAKZPHC 31; AR458/2010 (19 May 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR458/2010

Judges

Sishi, D Pillay, Ploos van Amstel

Appeal against enforcement of a child custody order dismissed with costs; the court upheld urgency, jurisdiction, and the costs order.

• Custody Order Enforcement
• Urgent Application
• Children S Act Interpretation
• Costs Award
• Custody-order-enforcement
• Urgent-applications

Ex parte: Sibisi (2115/10)

Ex parte: Sibisi (2115/10) [2010] ZAKZPHC 56; 2011 (1) SA 192 (KZP) (17 September 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

2115/10

Judges

K Swain, Mnguni, D Pillay

The High Court held that the Children’s Court lacks jurisdiction to grant guardianship orders under the Children’s Act and granted the applicant sole parental rights.

• Guardianship Of Minors
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Children S Act Interpretation
• Guardianship-of-minors
• Childrens-act
• Parental-responsibilities-rights