Fraser v Children's Court, Pretoria North

Last updated
Fraser v Children's Court, Pretoria North
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameFraser v the Children's Court, Pretoria North and Others
Decided5 February 1997 (1997-02-05)
Citation(s) [1997] ZACC 1, 1996 (8) BCLR 1085, 1997 (2) SA 218
Case history
Prior action(s)Referral from the Transvaal Provincial Division in terms of section 102 of the Interim Constitution
Court membership
Judges sitting Chaskalson P, Mahomed DP, Ackermann, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan & Sachs JJ
Case opinions
Decision byMahomed
Keywords

Fraser v Children's Court, Pretoria North and Others is a 1997 judgment of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which held that, in certain circumstances, the consent of the father is required before a child born out of wedlock may be adopted. In a unanimous decision, the court held that the provisions of the Child Care Act, 1983, which required only the mother's consent, were unconstitutional, but suspended its order for two years so that Parliament could amend the law accordingly. [1]

Contents

Facts

During the period for which the applicant, Fraser, and second respondent, Naude, lived together, the latter became pregnant. She decided to give the child up for adoption. The applicant did not agree with this decision and so launched series of unsuccessful applications to prevent the child being given up for adoption, and to be given custody of his child. He was denied this opportunity, as section 18(4)(d) of the Child Care Act only required the consent of the mother to give up children born out of wedlock for adoption.

Judgment

The court declared this to be unconstitutional, as it discriminated against fathers of children born out of wedlock on the basis of their gender. The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament to bring this provision of the Child Care Act in line with the Constitution within two years.

Related Research Articles

Grandparent visitation is a legal right that grandparents in some jurisdictions may have to have court-ordered contact with their grandchildren.

Many jurisdictions have laws applying to minors and abortion. These parental involvement laws require that one or more parents consent or be informed before their minor daughter may legally have an abortion.

In family law, contact, visitation and access are synonym terms that denotes the time that a child spends with the noncustodial parent, according to an agreed or court specified parenting schedule. The visitation term is not used in a shared parenting arrangement where the mother and father have joint physical custody.

The main family law of Japan is Part IV of Civil Code. The Family Register Act contain provisions relating to the family register and notifications to the public office.

Indian Child Welfare Act 1978 U.S. federal law regulating tribal jurisdiction over court cases involving children

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) is a United States federal law that governs jurisdiction over the removal of Native American (Indian) children from their families in custody, foster care and adoption cases.

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to a foreign-born child of an American father and a non-American mother who was not married to the father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

Adoption Act 1958 United Kingdom legislation

The Adoption Act 1958 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that updated and consolidated the law relating to adoption. After receiving Royal Assent on 18 December 1958 it came into force on 1 April 1959, regulating requirements for adopters, requirements for adoption agencies and the procedure to be used when making or appealing a court decision on adoption. After the regulations on adoption procedure were sharply criticised, law in this area was reformed with the Adoption Act 1976, which repealed the 1958 Act.

<i>Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions</i> South African legal case

Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down as unconstitutional a law which set the age of consent at 19 for homosexual sex but only 16 for heterosexual sex.

<i>Du Toit v Minister for Welfare and Population Development</i> South African legal case

Du Toit and Another v Minister for Welfare and Population Development and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which granted same-sex couples the ability to jointly adopt children. LGBT people had already been able to adopt children individually, but only married couples could adopt jointly; the decision was handed down in September 2002, four years before same-sex marriage became legal in South Africa. The court ruled unanimously that the statutory provisions limiting joint adoption to married couples were unconstitutional, and the resulting order amended the law to treat same-sex partners in the same way as married couples.

Adoption of Children Act 1949 Provincial high court in Canada

The Adoption of Children Act 1949 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This legislation liberalised various rules concerning adoption. Placement of children for adoption came under the supervision of local authorities, while adopted children were given inheritance rights. In addition, the legislation also rejected the notion, implied in the Children Act of 1926, that the mother had to know the identity of the adopter if she could reasonably give consent to adoption. The Act instead allowed the identity of the adopter to be concealed behind a serial number. The act was repealed on 5 November 1993.

This is a timeline of notable events in the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Africa.

Surrogacy laws by country

The legal aspects of surrogacy in any particular jurisdiction tend to hinge on a few central questions:

Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court family law case which argued that a New York law, which allowed unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, a veto over the adoption of that couple's children, was discriminatory.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (2013), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American biological fathers who are not custodians of a Native American child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child has never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Native American family also does not apply, nor is the preferred placement of the child in another Native American family required when no other party has formally sought to adopt the child.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the fathers of children born out of wedlock had a fundamental right to their children. Until the ruling, when the mother of a child born out of wedlock was unable to care for the child, through death or other circumstances, the child was made a ward of the state and either placed in an orphanage or foster care or given up for adoption.

X and Others v. Austria 53 ILM 64 was a human rights case that was decided in 2013 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The case concerned whether the Government of Austria had discriminated against Austrian citizens who were in same-sex relationships because the wording of the Austrian Civil Code did not permit unmarried same-sex couples access to legally granted second-parent adoptions, whereas it was available to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Forced adoption is the practice of removing children permanently from their parents and the subsequent adoption of those children, following intervention by the Children's Services department of a Local Authority in the United Kingdom. Former British Member of Parliament John Hemming is a long-standing and vocal critic of the system and estimates that "over 1000" of the 1,360 adoptions carried out without the parents' consent in 2010 may have been undertaken "wrongly".

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has been passed by Parliament of India amidst intense controversy, debate and protest on many of its provisions by Child Rights fraternity. It replaced the Indian juvenile delinquency law, Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and allows for juveniles in conflict with Law in the age group of 16–18, involved in Heinous Offences, to be tried as adults. The Act also sought to create a universally accessible adoption law for India, overtaking the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956) and the Guardians and Wards Act (1890), though not replacing them. The Act came into force from 15 January 2016.

<i>New Nation Movement NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa</i> South African legal case

New Nation Movement NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, [2020] ZACC 11, is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, handed down on 11 June 2020, which declared that the Constitution requires that citizens be allowed to stand for election to the National Assembly and provincial legislatures as independents without having to join or form a political party. The declaration was suspended for 24 months to allow Parliament to modify the electoral laws to comply. The majority judgment was written by Justice Madlanga and a concurring opinion was written by Justice Jafta; these opinions were supported by eight of the nine judges hearing the case. Justice Froneman filed a dissenting opinion.

References

  1. "Media Summary: Fraser v Children's Court, Pretoria North and Others" (PDF). Constitutional Court. 5 February 1997. Retrieved 6 May 2013.