Page 115 - PHi_Q&A_Eng-Digital.indd

In certain circumstances, the duty to maintain children may include the
duty to provide tertiary education. Our courts will consider the parent’s
financial circumstances, social status and the child’s academic aptitude and
achievements in order to determine whether there is a duty to provide tertiary
education in a particular case. A major child who wishes to further his or her
studies or has no other form of income, must be maintained by both parents,
until such a child earns an income and becomes self-supporting, should the
parents be in the financial position to do so.
What is very clear from our case law is that the wording of a settlement
agreement or maintenance order in respect of the duty to maintain a child is of
utmost importance in determining what the responsibility, including continued
responsibility after the age of majority is reached, is.
We would advise that you contact your attorney to discuss your current and
continued maintenance obligations in the light of any settlement agreement or
court orders that may apply.

Right of a parent to spank their child no more

Boitshoko Motsamai
February 2018

“I saw it reported in the news recently that spanking your child has finally been
criminalised. Is this true? Will this not result in overloading our justice system
even more than it already is?”

We all know that corporal punishment in any form in our schools has been
outlawed for a long time. But what is the situation at home. Here it is important
to understand that it has always been a crime of assault to hit a child, even your
own child. In this sense, spanking is already a crime of assault.
Parents, until recently, have however been able to raise the common law special
defence of moderate or reasonable chastisement if criminally charged, and
could if successful with such a defence, be found not guilty of assault.

In a recent ruling in the Gauteng High Court, where a minor was seriously
beaten by his parent, the common law position was changed by the court,
which found that the special defence of moderate or reasonable chastisement
is unconstitutional and not in the best interest of children. This ruling in effect
abolishes the right of parents to hit/chastise their children as it removes any Family
special defence which parents may have used to justify them doing so.

109