Fathers-4-Justice forms SA chapter

A SA branch of the British founded Fathers-4-Justice (F4J), a civil rights organisation campaigning for children's rights to see both parents and grandparents after a divorce, has been formed. Dr Steven Pretorius the founder of F4J in SA, said the organisation's main goal was to raise awareness of the plight of many parents – mainly fathers who had restricted or no access to their children, reports the Pretoria News. F4J has a lawyer, a former criminal advocate, a social worker and a psychologist on its team. Pretorius said one of the SA chapter of F4J's main goals would be to try to have unfair, punitive laws revisited. In 1998, the Child Care Act was reviewed by judges, who recommended some changes, including shared parenting after divorce. These recommendations have largely been ignored in the drafting of the changes to the Children's Bill, which is before Parliament. ‘We are hoping to lobby a change in the law for the benefit of our children,’ Pretorius said.
Full report in Pretoria News

Supreme Court says foetuses have rights

The Supreme Court of Appeal has handed down a landmark ruling that will allow parents for the first time to claim compensation from the Road Accident Fund for their unborn babies hurt in car accidents. The court, reports The Mercury, made this ruling late last week as Judge Ian Farlam dismissed fears it was bound to open the floodgates on litigation. The case was brought by Mxolisi Richard Mtati on behalf of his baby daughter, Zukhanye. He claimed R1.3m from the Road Accident Fund, saying that an accident on December 20 1989 caused his daughter to be born brain damaged. The Road Accident Fund refused to pay. It said a foetus did not qualify under law to be ‘a person’. In his judgment, Judge Farlam said it ‘would be intolerable if our law did not grant such an action’.
Full report in The Mercury not available online

 

Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.

 

THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES

THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES: SOME THOUGHTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, AND ON THE FUTURE
By Joanna Grossman

Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman provides a retrospective on the anniversary of Massachusetts' decision to begin to grant same-sex-marriage licenses. Grossman surveys developments at both the federal and state levels, and notes the issues that still remain for the future. She also explains important decisions relating to the separate issues of whether a state will grant same-sex marriage licenses, and whether it will respect other states' same-sex marriages.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050517.html

Child abuse sentence 'too lenient'

Child abuse watchdog groups say a suspended sentence handed down to a 45-year-old man who pleaded guilty to having s ex with a minor was too lenient, reports The Star. In terms of a plea bargain agreement reached in the Pretoria Regional Court, the man must pay R10 000 for psychological therapy for the girl and undergo treatment himself. The psychologist must file quarterly reports on his therapy with the prosecutor. He was also sentenced to a year's correctional supervision. He was sentenced to a fine of R1 000 or six months' imprisonment on the charge of breaking a bail condition when he contacted the girl after his arrest. Child Abuse Action Group spokesperson Nanana Mathebula-Mngomezulu said the court had been too lenient with the man, who was guilty of statutory r ape. People Opposing Women Abuse director Delphine Serumaga echoed this, saying that whether the girl had consented to s ex or not, it was still r ape.
Full report in The Star

 

Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.

 

Domestic Violence Act provision comes under ConCourt scrutiny

Ahmed Raffik Omar found himself on the wrong side of the law when he failed to pay maintenance to his ex-wife timeously, according to a report in The Star. But his subsequent arrest for breaching the terms of the protection order she obtained against him led him to the Constitutional Court where he will appear on Thursday to challenge the mandatory provision in the Domestic Violence Act that requires an arrest warrant to be issued with a protection order. Omar claims the provision requiring that a warrant of arrest be issued breached his right to freedom and security when a protection order was granted against him in April 2003. Lisa Vetten, of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, told the paper the case was cause for concern. ‘The main reasons why that provision (issuing of a warrant of arrest with a protection order) is in the Act is because it recognises the immediacy and importance of violence. ‘It recognises that a woman whose life is in danger cannot go to court and wait in the queues there, and then go to the police and wait in the queues there to have a warrant of arrest issued.’ The argument that the Act was abused by some people did not mean it had to be changed, she added. Full report in The Star    Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.