Main issue: It involves Adoption or a challenge posed as to whether section 18(4)(1) ) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 is constitutional where it proscribes the adoption of South African children by non-South Africans

Findings: Constitutionality of section 18(4)(f) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 proscribing the adoption of South African born children by persons who were not South African citizens or who were eligible to become naturalized but had not yet applied for naturalization. Goldstone J for a unanimous Court confirmed the High Court’s ruling that the provision violated the rights of the child. It was held that, not only does the Act offended against certain of the fundamental rights in the Constitution of South Africa but also infringes upon inter-country adoptions, as provided for in article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the UN Convention of the Rights of a child.

Main issue: Adoption or the right of same sex partners to adopt a child jointly and if such denial could be inconsistent with the Constitution.

Findings:  In a unanimous decision written by Skweyiya AJ the Court found that the infringed provisions of the Child Care Act and Guardianship Act discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status. In addition, the dignity right of one of the applicants was found to be infringed because of the denial of her as a parent. Lastly, the legislation was found to infringe the principle of the paramount of a child’s best interests.

Main Issue: Adoption or  discrimination on the basis of marital status and gender or  constitutionality of S 18(4)(d) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 provides that a children’s court to which application for an order of adoption is made shall not grant the application unless it is satisfied that consent to the adoption has been given by both parents of the child, or, if the child is illegitimate, by the mother of the child only.

Findings: The question of the constitutionality of s 18(4) (d) was referred for determination to the Constitutional Court in terms of s 102(1) of the Constitution.  S 18(4)(d) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 provides that a children’s court to which application for an order of adoption is made shall not grant the application unless it is satisfied that consent to the adoption has been given by both parents of the child, or, if the child is illegitimate, by the mother of the child only. Court held that the discrimination entailed by the section could not be justified. It unfairly discriminates against the fathers of certain children on the basis of their gender or their marital status. Every mother was given an automatic right to withhold her consent to the adoption of the child while this right was denied to every unmarried father. An order declaring the section unconstitutional was made whereas order was made to allow the section to survive pending correction by parliament.

Main Issue: Adoption or whether the anonymity of adoptive parents could be compromised or not and whether an illegitimate father can intervene in the case.

Findings: The case involved the intervention by a father of an illegitimate child in adoption proceedings. The majority of the Court found that adoption is a process which calls for a delicate balance to be struck when considering the respective interests of all the parties concerned, subject always to the best interest of the child being the overriding consideration. The Court held that the corner stone of an adoption hearing was the anonymity attached to the adoptive parents; if anonymity was in any way compromised, the best interest of the child would be subverted.

Main Issue: Abduction or  applicability of the Hague Convention and whether child should be returned to British Columbia/ if provision of Convention is in conflict with article 28 of Constitution.

Findings: The provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requiring mandatory return of a child removed or retained in breach of custody rights were held (per Goldstone J) to apply in this matter. Although the court assumed in favour of the applicant that the convention could, in certain circumstances, be in conflict with the constitutional injunction in s 28(2) that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in all matters, such conflict would be justified under s 36. The court thus ordered that the child be returned to British Columbia. Certain conditions were imposed on by the Court who further promoted the interest of the child.

Main Issue: Abduction or defenses in article 13(B) of the Hague Convention that requested State not bound to order return of child if existence of grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or that child would otherwise be placed in an intolerable situation.

Findings: On an application (by the father) for the return of a minor to her habitual residence in the US. The Court reasoned that once it has been shown that a child has been wrongfully removed, the person opposing the return of the child must “establish” circumstances bringing the case within the ambit of article 13 of the Hague Convention. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the court a quo, by stating that it has erred in accepting the argument of the respondent (mother) that the minor would be exposed to harm were she to be returned to the USA. The Court explained that the respondent has not proved the possibility of grave risk.

Main Issue: Return of child/abduction/ and the application of the Hague Convention

Findings: Appellant and respondent, both South Africans, had moved to the UK. After coming to South Africa for a holiday, respondent informed appellant that the children and herself are staying in South Africa and not going to UK and that she had instituted a divorce proceeding. Court, after considering a number of issues pertaining to the Hague Convention decided that the home of the children is South Africa and there was no need to send them back to the UK (since it had already also been 2 years since they arrived here in South Africa and that is was also unlikely that either child had any recollection of having lived in the UK at all.)

Main Issue: Abduction and the application of the Hague Conventions in particular from the view point of the best interest of the child.

Findings: Parties had been divorced in the US and custody of their minor son had been awarded to the respondent, the mother, with liberal visitation provisions in favour of the applicant. Following of an incident of alleged abuse, respondent suspended visitations of applicant and later came to Cape Town. The applicant (father) applied for the return of his child to their habitual residence and that the issue of parental custody and access is determined in the jurisdiction of the York County Family Court in South Carolina. Court found the wrongful removal of the child against the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and ordered the return of the child back to the USA.

Court also considered, as its duty, to make appropriate orders to ensure maximum possible safety of the child until the foreign court could resume its role.

Main Issue: Return of child/abduction and related

Findings: Court refused application that the respondent furnish security for the costs of applicant’s litigation on the ground that although the Court was clothed with a discretion in such applications, it was bound by the provisions of the Hague Convention on Abduction (article 22) which did not oblige to give security of costs.