Divorce – Don’t play chess by using your children as pawns

DIVORCE – Don’t play chess by using your children as pawns

This world is rife of parents using their children as pawns in the dirty game of divorce or where children are born out of wedlock. We have all heard of the old saying “no maintenance no kids” or “you left me so you won’t see your kids”. Parents don’t realise the damage they are doing in using their children as a means to get back at the other parent.

By isolating or alienating the children from the other parent is damaging not only to the other parent but even more damaging to the children. As a family law attorney I have seen cases where one parent will go to immeasurable lengths to isolate the other parent from building a parental relationship with his/her children, thereby depriving the children in the process of the only stability they may have left.

So often you hear about the mother that lays sexual molesting charges, with no substance against the father simply in an attempt to isolate the father from having a relationship with the children or a mother obtaining a Domestic Violence interdict against a father simply to interdict the father from having a relationship with his children. Although it seems to be mostly women that play this deadly game, there are also fathers who use their children as pawns against the mother. Unfortunately in battles of this sort there are also attorneys who fuel the battles on behalf of their clients and who somehow lose sight of what the best interests of the child really means. Depriving the other parent of a relationship with his/her children is possibly one of the most devious methods to ruin a solid society.

In terms of section 33 (2) of the Children’s Act parents who experience difficulties in exercising their parental responsibilities and rights in respect of a child must, before seeking the intervention of a court, first seek to agree on a parenting plan. The section discourages co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights from approaching the court as a first resort when they experience difficulties in exercising those rights and responsibilities.  This section does not compel parents to enter into a parenting plan, it simply instructs them to attempt to agree on one. Looking at this section closely it seems that where one parent refuse to engage in such discussions the court may be approached for then an attempt to agree on a plan was made, even if it was doomed from the start.  Section 33(5) instructs a person to seek the assistance of a family advocate, social worker or psychologist, or mediation through a social worker or suitably qualified person in preparing a parenting plan. It is therefore clear that before approaching the court, a person must first seek such assistance. If the other party is not amenable to engage then obviously a court may be approached.

Section 35 of the Act criminalises the refusal to allow someone who has access or holds parental responsibilities and rights in terms of a court order or a parental responsibilities and rights agreement that has taken effect to exercise such access. It also criminalises prevention of the exercise such access. Punishment is either a fine or imprisonment of up to one year.

About the Author:

Bertus Preller is a Divorce Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times and magazines such as Noseweek, You and Huisgenoot, and also appeared on SABC television on the 3 Talk TV show. His clients include artists, celebrities, sports people and high networth individuals.

 

Divorce and Parenting Plans

The Children’s Act offers parenting plans as a method to regulate and assist parents to agree how to exercise their parental responsibilities and rights.

Section 33(1) of the Children’s Act provides that co-holders of parental rights and responsibilities may agree on a parenting plan that sets out the method and mode of how each parent will exercise his/her rights over the children. Parenting Plans must comply with the best interests of the child standard.

It frequently happens that one parent will experience difficulties in exercising his/her parental rights, with the other parent deliberately blocking contact or frustrating it where no parenting plan exist or where a court order was made years ago that did not keep track or became outdated with the changes in our family law over the years. Where parents do struggle or where they experience difficulties to exercise these rights, mediation in terms of the Children’s Act is a prerequisite. The Act stipulates that an aggrieved parent must first seek the assistance of the Family Advocate, social worker or psychologist. Alternatively they must go to mediation facilitated by a social worker or other suitably qualified person.

The Children’s Act discourages parents from approaching the court as a first resort when they experience difficulties in exercising their rights and responsibilities.  The Act use the word “must” in section 33(5) which means that parties’ are compelled to refer to seek assistance or mediation prior to embarking on court action. The Act also lays down certain guidelines concerning parenting plans, for example that it must be in writing and that it must be registered with a Family Advocate Office or made an order of court. To register a parenting plan at the office of the Family Advocate a prescribed form must be used.

Once a parenting plan is in place it may be amended, suspended or terminated. Where a plan was registered at the office of the Family Advocate the parties must apply to the Family Advocate Office to amend, suspend or terminate the plan and in the event that it was made an order of court an application should be made to court to vary the plan.

One must distinguish between Parental Responsibilities and Rights Agreements (PRR) made in terms of section 22 and Parenting Plans in terms of section 33 of the Act. PRR plans are usually entered into where a mother or other person comes to an agreement with the biological father of the child and encompass an agreement with a party that did not have rights in terms of section 21.  Such an agreement confers rights and the agreement is typically between unmarried parents.

Parenting Plans on the other hand are usually entered into by co-holders of PRR Plans, the agreement delineates existing rights and an attempt to agree is a prerequisite in going to court. Typically, such a plan is entered into by divorcing parents and an unmarried father who does qualify in terms of the Act.

Section 35 of the Act contains a provision with its aim to prevent a parent from frustrating the other parent’s rights. If a person under whose care a child is refuse contact with the other parent who is also a co-holder and do so contrary to a court order or registered plan, such person could be found guilty of a criminal offence. Such person can be liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year. A person, with whom a child lives, must also notify the other parent of a change of address. Failure could result in a criminal offence.

About Divorce Attorney Cape Town:

Bertus Preller is a Divorce Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Bertus Preller & Associates Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

Divorce Ends Marriages…But Families Endure…

Divorce Ends Marriages…But Families Endure…

“Children need and deserve the love, care,
and support of both their parents”

Divorce is said to be one of the most traumatic experiences in the life of a person. Not only is it traumatic for the spouses but also for the children. In our current society it is not difficult see what the effects of divorce have on spouses, families and children. The ripple effect of a divorce rolls into the lives of most of the extended family members and close friends. As a family law attorney I see the effects of divorce every day. What parents should realise is that although the spousal relationship may end at divorce, the parental relationship will endure for a lifetime. The more acrimonious the break-up the more difficult will it be for the parents to parent their children in future. It is therefore of utmost importance that spousal conflict should bow for the sake of the best interests of the children, sooner rather than later. As a matter of fact, all that children want is to be happy. Unfortunately in many divorces it is the parents that act like children.
Here are some pointers for parents:

  1. Try to resolve your conflicts without putting your kids in the middle. Be objective about your children’s needs (do not confuse them with your own). Resolve a conflict sooner rather than later.
  2. Treat the other parent with respect, like you want to be treated. Set an example for your children. Our children imitate our behaviour. The disrespect that you show toward the other parent will be played out by the child in his own life. It’s extremely important for a child’s healthy development to have respect for authority figures, including both parents.
  3. Know your boundaries. When it comes to your children, it’s sometimes very difficult to tell yourself what they’ are doing while they are with the other parent, well it is actually none of your business, unless they will be physically or psychologically harmed, it probably is none of your business.
  4. Communicate regularly about the children with the other parent. There are lots to share. When children are still small, the other parent needs to know the basics when parenting responsibilities are being transferred. The worst-possible scenario is that a lack of communication may lead to a child not being picked up after school or day care, or important medical treatment being disrupted.
  5. Demonstrate positive conflict resolution to your children. You can use conflict as an opportunity to show your children how to resolve issues in a responsible manner.
  6. Do not allow all of the parenting tasks to fall on one parent. Things that are out of balance usually don’t work well. Don’t expect the other parent to be in charge of all of the communicating, extra purchases for your child or all of the discipline that needs to be done.
  7. Be a consistent parent – in disciplining, feeding and caring for your children. It really makes transitions from one household to the other easier, it minimizes the outbursts from children after visits at the other parent. Respect the other parent’s parenting approaches, and do recognize that while consistency is optimal, differences are okay. Children can distinguish that something that’s okay at Dad’s house may not be okay at Morn’s house.

The various ages and how children react to divorce:

Zero to One Year

Babies at this age begin to form attachments, so it is important to minimize changes and disruptions in their lives and show them love and affection. It’s important that they spend time with both parents so they can form attachments with both. Signs of distress can be excessive crying, problems with feeding or sleeping, and withdrawal.

One to Three Years

At this age children become more mobile and gaining communication skills. They are also able to recognize close adults, so they are sensitive to separation. These kids need consistency in routine and patience from their parents to safely explore their environment. Signs of distress are nightmares, mood changes, and changes in toileting.

Three to Five Years

Kids at this age believe they are the center of the universe, and so they feel responsible for the family split. Parents need to be positive during exchanges, keep a consistent schedule, and tell the kids that the divorce or split is not their fault. Signs of distress include toileting and sleep problems.

Five to Ten Years

Kids at this age are entering school and forming relationships outside the family. They may try to reunite parents and may feel and act out intense anger. Parents should develop a schedule that allows for consistency with school and extracurricular activities, and support their kids’ interests and friendships. Signs of distress at this age include expressions of anger, drop in school performance, sleep problems, and physical complaints.

Ten to Twelve Years

Pre-teens tend to see things in black and white terms, and so may align themselves with one parent. Parents should encourage these kids to love both parents and support their kids’ school and other activities. Signs of distress in pre-teens may include loss of interest in friends, becoming a perfectionist, depression, and isolation.

Early Adolescence (Thirteen to Fifteen Years)

Teens will often prefer to spend more time with friends than family, so allow room in the parenting plan for this. These teens need firm but fair guidelines and positive role models. They may also want to be included in creating the parenting plan. Signs of distress in this age group may include excessive anger or isolation, difficulty with school or peers, alcohol and drug use, and sexual acting out.

Late Adolescence (Sixteen to Eighteen Years)

Teens in this age group are learning to be independent to prepare for the separation from their parents, but they still need support and rules. These teens may also want to be included in creating the parenting plan. Watch for signs of distress, including reduction in school performance, difficulty with peers, alcohol and drug use, and sexual acting out. If parents aren’t able to talk, your teen can say, “I’m spending tonight at mom’s (dad’s) house,” and you won’t know if they’re really there.

New Research Gives Insights into Guidance about Parenting Plans

New Research Gives Insights into Guidance about Parenting Plans

Is shared parenting the best arrangement for kids? Should infants and toddlers be shuttled between two homes? Is it important to include children in decisions about care and contact? These are just some of the difficult questions facing parents, attorneys, judges, mediators and others who are involved in navigating children through the divorce process.

Recently, several numbers of reports have been released that summarize the state of the research on parental issues. The results are surely not simple, but they provide some really helpful insights into what parents need to consider in managing parenting following a divorce.

Marsha Pruett, Smith College of Social Work, provides a general set of guidelines for children at different ages. She notes that children at different ages have varying needs and differing abilities to navigate through and cope with the variations in changing families. She notes further that equal time in parenting is not always the best arrangement for families. She also reminds parents, “It is the quality of time and parenting – not the quantity – that is more highly related to closeness between parent and child.” According to her, “The absolute amount of parenting time should be emphasized less than a plan that allows for a schedule that enables both parents to feel and act engaged and responsible.”

A particularly challenging divorce situation is one in which the children are very young–infants and toddlers. There has been much debate about the appropriateness of overnight stays and shared parenting arrangements in general. Jennifer McIntosh has been studying this issue that provides a good summary of the research evidence to date. There is lots of evidence that parenting during the first 3 years of a child’s life is critical to health development, particularly in how child manage their emotions and cope with stress. McIntosh’s summary of the current evidence is that children in the first 3 years of life should not involve overnight care in two homes. She also notes that young children’s attachment to the non-residential parent can be achieved through regular contact that involves “warm, lively, attuned caregiving.” In short, children’s development depends less on whether or not children sleep in two homes, than on the quality of the parenting.

There are three primary ways parents can help insure that their children have fewer difficulties following divorce writes, JoAnne Pedro-Carroll, “the degree and duration of hostile conflict, the quality of parenting provided over time, and the quality of the parent-child relationship.” She summarizes the important research findings that focus on each of these factors. She emphasized that it is important for children to have rules and routines that give them a sense of security. Likewise, they need to know that they are loved and cared for by hearing the words, but also by actions that reflect active and engaged talk and play. And they will thrive better when their parents manage their own strong emotions and conflicts. She recommends that parents reframe their relationship to a more business-like model in which the goal is the well-being of the children. For high-conflict parents she describes a model of parallel parenting that can best serve children and minimize conflict.

Source: Huffington Post

International abduction of minor children a South African Law Perspective

International abduction of minors a South African Perspective

Article 3(b) of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), which is incorporated into South African law by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996 (the Act), provides that the removal or retention of a child is to be considered wrongful if, among others, at the time of the removal or retention, the rights of custody were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

In terms of article 13(b), the authority of the requested state is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body in the other state that opposes the return or retention establishes that there is a grave risk that his return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. In Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v LG 2011 (2) SA 386 (GNP) the second applicant, the father, and the respondent, the mother, were married and living together with their minor child in the United Kingdom (UK). After several heated arguments the parties agreed to divorce and that the respondent would return to her native South Africa with the child. Alleging that the respondent agreed to return with the minor child to the UK after attending a wedding in South Africa and as she failed to do so she had unlawfully retained the child in this country, the second applicant (with the help of the first applicant, the Central Authority of South Africa) applied for a court order for the return of the child to the UK. The application was dismissed with costs.

Molopa-Sethosa J said the fact that the second applicant was prepared to stay away from the minor child, who was only 17-months-old at the time, for at least six months when the child was in South Africa with the respondent (who was during that time considering whether reconciliation with the second applicant was possible) was not indicative of a close bond between the second applicant and the child. Furthermore, the child would be exposed to the risk of psychological harm if he were to be returned to the second applicant who did not have the best interests of the child at heart. The fact that since the child had been in South Africa his health improved tremendously was of the utmost importance and could not be ignored.

Best interests and views of a child in international abduction matters:

In Central Authority v MR (LS Intervening) 2011 (2) SA 428 (GNP) the court dealt with the best interests of a minor child and her views in an international child abduction matter. After the death of her mother the minor child of some nine years lived with her biological father in Belgium. Subsequently the two relocated to Los Angeles, in the United States of America (USA), because of the father’s professional commitments.

There the two lived with the father’s new wife. After the child visited her maternal grandmother in Hoedspruit, Limpopo, the grandmother prevented the minor child returning to the father in Los Angeles and instituted an ex parte application to keep the child in this country. She sought, pending the final outcome of the family advocate’s investigation, full parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the minor. Meanwhile, the father sought the return of the child to the USA. The court dismissed the father’s application, but ordered the grandmother to pay costs because of the unacceptable way she instituted ex parte proceedings and for not being candid with the court.

The Effects of Divorce on Children

The Effects of Divorce on Children

As a family law attorney I am involved on a daily basis in stories about divorce or care and contact issues between parents and children and many times I see how the loss of a parent has affected the lives of children. Although my approach is  always clinical, I’m often saddened by these stories, but in awe as to how many of these adult children have risen above their loss to develop an emotionally healthy outlook on life.

It was with great interest that I watched psychotherapist, Gary Neuman, who appeared on one of Oprah’s shows. Gary interviewed two young children, a brother and sister; they were abandoned by their mother when she divorced her husband, their father. Both children were crying, and yet were remarkably articulate in their description of their thoughts and feelings regarding their mother’s abandonment of them due to divorce. While parents do divorce each other, they don’t divorce their children.

Children nonetheless are the ones who live out the divorce because their day-to-day routines, not to mention their emotional lives, are so deeply affected by it. And of course, the impact of being estranged or abandoned by a parent as a result of divorce can have far reaching and long lasting consequences on their lives. A number of experts on children of divorce question whether the abandonment or estrangement necessarily leads to lifelong behavioural and emotional scarring. What they do find is that one parent’s love, nurturing, and support, can go a long way to helping a child overcome many of the emotional and behavioural issues that otherwise could ensue.

It is a fact that divorce can affect the closeness of the parent versus child relationship for a number for reasons and can take a serious emotional toll on the child. Joan Kelly, one of the America’s foremost experts on children of divorce, defines an estranged relationship between a parent and child as a diminished, thinned out, and less meaningful bond. She says that 24% of children in the United States from divorced families are seeing a parent once a year, if at all and one may assume that this figure is even bigger in South Africa.

In his research, Robert Emery Director of the Centre for Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Virginia, found that non-residential fathers saw their children only 4 times per month following divorce, and about 20% of children had no contact at all with their fathers 2-3 years after divorce. Other research have concluded that, many students of divorced parents who had a limited relationship with their fathers while growing up stated that they would have liked more contact with their fathers during their adolescence, would have liked to have been closer, and wanted more time together. It is a fact that a parent’s rejection of a child or a parent’s inconsistent presence could drastically affect a child’s self esteem.

One good parent who is loving and nurturing can overcome the negative effects of losing the relationship with the other parent. While the emotional impact on a child resulting from the loss of a parent’s relationship could be significant, it doesn’t have to be disastrous.

The following advice should be considered:

  • Family is not a just about biology. Find role models who will support and care about you. Be there for your kids.
  • Be reliable, pay maintenance, show your love, and do what you say you are going to do.
  • Provide help. Initiate the conversation about their loss of the relationship with their other parent.
  • Lend an understanding ear. Don’t lecture, and don’t feel you have to have the perfect answer.
  • Honesty. Find help for what to say to your children if you don’t know what to say. Children need to be heard.
  • You can’t control what the other parent does; you can only control yourself.
  • To help your children get through their pain, ensure that they feel heard and listened to –that gives them value.

You want your children to perceive themselves with their own goals and aspirations, independent of their status as the children of divorce.

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

A:1st Floor, 56 Shortmarket Street, Cape Town, 8000

O: +27 (0) 21 422 1323

F: 086 572 8373

E: bertus@divorceattorney.co.za; W: www.divorceattorney.co.za; Blog: www.divorceattorneys.wordpress.com;  Twitter: www.twitter.com/edivorce; Facebook: www.facebook.com/divorceattorneys; Skype: divorceattorney

Grounds for Divorce in South Africa

GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE IN SOUTH AFRICA

Dissolution of marriage and grounds of divorce

A marriage may be dissolved by a court by a decree of divorce and the only grounds on which such a decree may be granted are the irretrievable break-down of the marriage as contemplated in section 4; the mental illness or the continuous unconsciousness, as contemplated in section 5, of a party to the marriage.

Irretrievable break-down of marriage as ground of divorce

A court may grant a decree of divorce on the ground of the irretrievable break-down of a marriage if it is satisfied that the marriage relationship between the parties to the marriage has reached such a state of disintegration that there is no reasonable prospect of the restoration of a normal marriage relationship between them.

Section 4 (2) of the Divorce Act lays down three circumstances which a Court may accept as evidence of irretrievable breakdown of a marriage and these are that:- the parties have not lived together as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least one year immediately prior to the date of the institution of the divorce action. The Defendant has committed adultery and that the Plaintiff finds it irreconcilable with a continued marriage relationship the Defendant has in terms of a sentence of a Court been declared a habitual criminal and is undergoing imprisonment as a result of such sentence.

This does not mean however that:- the man and wife have to live in separate buildings but the Courts are in general not willing to (even on a undisputed basis), hear the case if the parties are still living in the same house on the date of the application. There must be a reasonable explanation, but even then some judges have refused to grant a decree of divorce. if the Plaintiff is a party to an adulterous relationship it is not fatal for a final divorce order and it may be proof of a real break-down of the marriage. It is correct to disclose the adulterous relationship to the Court. if irretrievable breakdown has been proved, that the court still has discretion to refuse the divorce. See Levy v Levy 1991 (1) SA 614 A where the Appeal Court had decided that a court had no discretion to deny a divorce where the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage has been proved.

Court’s discretion

In terms of section 4(3) of the Divorce Act the Court still has discretion not to grant a divorce order but postpone the proceedings sine die or even dismiss the claim if it appears to the Court that there is a reasonable possibility that the parties may become reconciled through marriage counselling, treatment or reflection. The Summons also usually contains the averment that further marriage counselling and/or treatment will not lead to any reconciliation. This evidence must also be tendered to the Court even on an unopposed basis.

The Court must therefore be satisfied that the marriage has really irretrievably broken down and that there is no possibility of the continuation of a normal marriage, before a final divorce order will be granted.

The court may postpone the proceedings in order that the parties may attempt reconciliation if it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility that the parties may become reconciled through marriage counselling, treatment or reflection.

Where the parties live together again after the issue of Summons, it does not necessarily end the underlying cause of the action. If the reconciliation after a few months is seemingly unsuccessful, they can proceed on the same Summons. It is now confirmed that the marriage has really broken-down irretrievably even after the parties have tried a final time to become reconciled. Where a divorce action which is not defended is postponed in order to afford the parties an opportunity to attempt reconciliation, the court may direct that the action be tried de novo, on the date of resumption thereof, by any other magistrate/ judge of the court concerned in terms of section 4(4) of the Divorce Act. The notice of set down should be served on the defendant.

A customary marriage may be dissolved only on account of an irretrievable breakdown in the marriage and only if the High, Family or Divorce Court is satisfied that the marriage relationship between the parties has reached such a state of disintegration that there is no reasonable prospect of the restoration of a normal marriage relationship between them.

Mental illness or continuous unconsciousness as grounds of divorce:

A court may grant a decree of divorce on the ground of the mental illness of the defendant if it is satisfied that the defendant, in terms of the Mental

Health Act 18 of 1973; has been admitted as a patient to an institution in terms of a reception order; is being detained as a State patient at an institution or other place specified by the Minister of Correctional Services; or is being detained as a mentally ill convicted prisoner at an institution.

A divorce order may also be granted if such defendant has also for a continuous period of at least two years immediately prior to the institution of the divorce action, not been discharged unconditionally as such a patient,

State patient or mentally ill prisoner; and the court has heard evidence of at least two psychiatrists, of whom one shall have been appointed by the court, that the defendant is mentally ill and that there is no reasonable prospect that he will be cured of his mental illness.

A court may grant a decree of divorce on the ground that the defendant is by reason of a physical disorder in a state of continuous unconsciousness, if it is satisfied that the defendant’s unconsciousness has lasted for a continuous period of at least six months immediately prior to the institution of the divorce action; and after having heard the evidence of at least two medical practitioners, of whom one shall be a neurologist or a neurosurgeon appointed by the court, that there is no reasonable prospect that the defendant will regain consciousness.

The court may appoint a legal practitioner to represent the defendant at proceedings under this section and order the plaintiff to pay the costs of such representation.

The court may make any order it may deem fit with regard to the furnishing of security by the plaintiff in respect of any patrimonial benefits to which the defendant may be entitled by reason of the dissolution of the marriage.

For the purposes of this section the expressions ‘institution’, ‘mental illness’, ‘patient’, ‘State patient’ and ‘reception order’ shall bear the meaning assigned to them in the Mental Health Act, 1973.

The circumstances under which a court may grant a divorce order on the basis of mental illness or continuous unconsciousness is as follows:-

  •  In the case of mental illness the Defendant must have been admitted, in terms of the Mental Health Act, 1973 (Act No 18 of 1973), as a patient to an institution in terms of a reception order, for a period of at least two years and in any case two psychiatrists (one appointed by the Court) must satisfy the Court that there is no reasonable prospect that he will be cured of his mental illness.
  • In the case of unconsciousness the Court will only grant the order if the Defendant was unconscious for a continuous period of at least six months immediately prior to the institution of the action and also after hearing the evidence of two medical practitioners of whom one shall be a neurologist or a neuro-surgeon appointed by the Court who must declare that there is no reasonable prospect that the Defendant will regain consciousness.

In such cases a curator ad litem must be appointed to protect the interests of the Defendant (patient) and to assist the Court.

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.