Monthly Archives: February 2018

Can the future development of a property be stopped?

The provincial heritage resources authority (PHRA) granted a permit in terms of Section 34 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 for the demolition of a structure that was older than 60 years and situated on a property with no formal heritage status. By doing so, conditions were imposed controlling future development on the property and it was held that such conditions were lawfully imposed.

Gees v the Provincial Minister of Cultural Affairs and Sport

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently dismissed an appeal against a judgment of the Western Cape High Court. In so doing the SCA held that the large concentration of art deco buildings spanning Davenport Road, Vredehoek, Cape Town, forms part of the national estate and is worthy of protection as a heritage resource.

Therefore, the SCA held that Heritage Western Cape, in granting a permit for the demolition of the appellant’s 60-year-old block of flats, was justified in imposing conditions controlling future development on the property.

It is true that the conditions imposed in the demolition permit amount to a curtailment of the appellant’s entitlement to deal with his property as he sees fit, and may therefore to a certain extent be regarded as a deprivation of property. However, it is widely recognised that in our present constitutional democracy an increased emphasis has been placed upon the characteristic of ownership which requires that entitlements must be exercised in accordance with the social function of law in the interest of the community.

Conclusion

AJ van der Walt and GJ Pienaar in “Introduction to the Law of Property” 7ed (2016), put it as follows:

‘. . . the inherent responsibility of the owner towards the community in the exercise of his entitlements is emphasised. The balance between the protection of ownership and the exercise of entitlements of the owner regarding third parties, on the one hand, and the obligations of the owner to the community, on the other hand, must be maintained throughout. This might, in certain circumstances, even mean that an owner’s entitlements could be limited or infringed upon in the interest of the community. In such cases the infringement must always be reasonable and equitable [not arbitrary].’

Reference:

  • Gees v The Provincial Minister of Cultural Affairs and Sport (974/2015) [2015] ZASCA 136 (29 September 2016)

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Who pays for the child after divorce?

When couples divorce it’s often the children that feel the brunt of it. Sometimes it’s the other person in the relationship that suffers economically. Hence the reason there’s a legal duty towards maintenance after divorce, which is an obligation to provide for another person.

A child of a divorced couple, for example, may need help with housing, food, education and medical care. Maintenance could also be understood as providing the means for the person to have the necessary essentials. Maintenance duties is based on factors such as blood relationship, adoption, or that two people are/were married to each other.

This duty is also referred to as ‘the duty to maintain’ or ‘the duty to support’.

Which parent supports the child?

If a couple has decided on getting divorced, then the child has to be supported by both the parents, regardless if they’re living together or whether or not the child was adopted. In some cases, the grandparents are also responsible for the child’s maintenance, even if the parents weren’t married. This usually happens if the parents are unable to support the child.

What if the child is living with one parent?

In scenarios where the child is living with one of the parents, it is still the duty of the other parent to also contribute to the maintenance of the child. Many people in South Africa, especially women, face the reality of an ex-spouse who doesn’t live with the child and doesn’t want to pay maintenance. However, there is no legal way out of a parent contributing to a child’s maintenance, even if one of the parents re-marries.

What if you can’t find your non-paying ex-spouse?

If one of the child’s parents refuses to pay and doesn’t make their whereabouts known, then it is the responsibility of the state to claim maintenance from the unpaying parent. Maintenance investigators will try solve the issue and trace the person who is responsible for maintenance.

When does the maintenance end?

Until a child reaches the age of 18, his/her parents or another person (guardian) will have the parental rights and responsibilities for the child. This includes the maintenance of the child. So both the divorced parents of a child will have to contribute to the caring and maintenance of the child at least until he/she becomes an adult.

References:

  • Anderson, AM. Dodd, A. Roos, MC. 2012. “Everyone’s Guide to South African Law. Third Edition”. Zebra Press.
  • Justice.gov.za. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Family Law, Maintenance. [online] Available at: http://www.justice.gov.za/vg/children/ [Accessed 13/05/2016].

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Children with disability or chronic illness

The South African Children’s Act ensures the safety of ALL children,including those with disability or chronic illness.

Many children (and their families) experience a sense of powerlessness in the beginning of dealing with a disability or chronic illness, and often feel very stressed at facing a future filled with unknowns. Every child has the right to health and safety, and in South Africa, the Children’s Act provides for the health and safety of ALL children, including children with disability or chronic illness. It is important that children who are disabled or live with a chronic illness know their rights; they should be informed and protected.

The law on children with disability

South African law states that due consideration must be given to children with disability:

  • The child must be provided with care and support as and when appropriate.
  • It must be made possible for the child to participate in social and educational activities, recognising their special needs and promoting self-reliance.

The law on children with chronic illness

According to South African law, the following must be evident when it comes to children with chronic illness:

  • The child must be provided with the necessary parental care and support services.
  • The child must be provided with conditions that ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate participation in the community.

A child with disability or chronic illness has the right not to be subjected to medical, cultural or religious practices that are detrimental to their health or dignity. Parents or guardians should do their best to protect the rights of their children, and also to listen to them and assist them where needed. However, it is important not to safeguard them in such a way as to alienate them from the rest of the world.

Reference:

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

HIV-testing for children

The Children’s Act provides that children cannot simply be tested for HIV,and that their status be held confidential

A child cannot merely be tested for HIV; a valid reason must be given in order to protect the child from being unnecesarily tested, potentially causing emotional or physical harm. According to the Children’s Act, no child may be tested for HIV, except when it is in the best interests of the child and consent has been given, or the test is necessary to establish whether someone may have contracted HIV from the child.

Consent for an HIV-test

Consent for an HIV-test on a child may be given by:

  • the child;
  • the parent or caregiver;
  • the provincial head of social development;
  • a designated child protection organisation arranging a placement of the child;
  • the superintendent or person in charge of the hospital; and/or
  • a children’s court.

Confidentiality of status

The law states that no person may disclose (without consent) that a child is HIV-positive, except when:

  • the law states that it is the person’s duty; and/or
  • it is necessary for legal proceedings.

Consent to disclose that the child is HIV-positive may be given by the same role players that are to give consent for the HIV-testing procedure.

Note that when it comes to the HIV-testing of a child, whether regarding the procedure of testing or the confidentiality of the child’s status, that there exist specific requirements for all potential role players to actually be granted as valid persons to be giving consent.

Reference:

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).