The Best Interest of the Child

Du Toit and Another v Minister for Welfare and Population Development and Others 2002 (10) BCLR 1006 (CC)

Main Issue: Same sex partners and their right to adopt children

Findings: Right of same sex life partners to jointly adopt children. 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.

      

Western Cape Minister of Education and others v Governing Body of Mikro Primary School and another (2005) 3 All SA 436 (SCA)

Main Issue: Education/right to receive education in any official language in public school

Findings: Court held that, the right interpretation of the Constitution is that everyone has a right to be educated in an official language of his or her choice at a public educational institution provided by the state if reasonably practicable, but not the right to be so instructed at each and every public educational institution subject only to it being reasonably practicable to do so. And court ordered that the placement of the children at another suitable school is to be done taking into account the best interests of the children.

      

Kotze v Kotze 2003 (3) SA 628 (T)

Main Issue: Best interest of the child

Findings: In divorce proceeding settlement agreement, parties agreed that they both undertook to educate the child in a certain “A” church. Court amended agreement in this regard and stated that because the clause denies the child his freedom to religion it would not be in his best interest that such clause be inserted which pre-determined his future and placed constraints in his right towards the religion of the child

      

Haskins v Wildgoose and others (1996) 3 All SA 446 (T)

Main Issue: Adoption/right of access of a natural father to an illegitimate son

Findings: Application was made for access to an illegitimate son. After launching of proceedings, mother of the child gave the child for adoption to her parents. However, The Court held that the father had always taken an interest in the child and that, given the opportunity, he would continue to do so which the Court saw to be fit with the best interest of the child and awarded access.

      

Belo v Commissioner of Child Welfare, Johannesburg; Belo v Chapelle [2002] 3 All SA 286 (W)

Main Issue: Adoption

Findings: Applicant wanted to appeal (for an extension of time for the late noting of the appeal) against an adoption order granted in favour of his ex-wife and her new husband without his consent. Court held that, with its discretion, the delay in noting the appeal in the present case was so inordinately long (7 years) that it would not be in the best interest of the child to now interfere with the adoption order.

      

Talbot v Cleverly and another (2003) 1 All SA 640 (W)

Main Issue: Adoption

Findings: The Court concurred that the natural father had received no notice of his child's adoption proceedings though his whereabouts was known to respondents. This has denied him his right to be informed the adoption proceedings and to grant or withhold consent. However, turning to consider the best interest of the child, rescission of the order would mean that the adoption proceedings would have to be heard de novo with no likelihood of achieving a different result. Appellant had not also argued that the rescission of the order would be of any benefit child or indicated that he wished to adopt the child himself. Accordingly, the court held that rescission would not be in the best interest of the child.

      

J v Commissioner of Child Welfare (1996) 2 All SA 259 (W)

Main Issue: Adoption/request to withdraw consent to set aside an adoption order

Findings: Applicant forwarded a lot of arguments to withdraw the consent she gave for the adoption of her child. Her main arguments were that the respondent acted grossly unreasonably in failing to make further enquiry about the adoptive parents and that the respondent had failed to take into account the best interest of the child. The Court held that the respondent had relied on the social worker's reports and had no reason to doubt that the applicant had consented to the adoption and that the adoptive parents were suitable. It also held that there was overwhelming evidence before the Court that the adoption is in the best interest of the child which applicant failed to attack and dismissed the application.