Breaking the news to children

One of the hardest parts of any divorce is telling the children. It is important that you tell them together about the divorce. It sends a clear message to your children that you are both capable of working together for their benefit. In addition, you have to tell all of the children at once so that each child hears the news directly from Mom and Dad and not from a sibling who heard it first. Let them understand that it was an adult decision; children need lots of reassurance that the divorce is not their fault. Reassure them that you are available and that you will always be there for them. Collectively and individually convey your unconditional love through words and actions. Make it clear to them that parents don’t divorce children. If your children are of different ages, do follow-ups with the older children in separate conversations.

The manner in which you break the news will affect the degree of their anxiety. Don’t let the meeting become a screaming match; the news will be difficult enough for them to handle so don’t cloud things further. Avoid the tendency to assign blame and try to incorporate the word ‘we’ when you’re explaining the decisions that have been made.
Let your children express their feelings. It is a fact that most parents only spend one and a half minutes per day actively listening to their children. Most of the time is spent giving instructions: ‘keep quiet’, ‘brush your teeth’, ‘comb your hair’, ‘get into bed’ and so on. Become active listeners and allow your children the time and freedom to express their own feelings.

Never try to win or lobby support from your children. Your children may try to be your friend out of fear of rejection, but in the end it will only confuse them. Children need to know that they can turn to you for support, not the other way around.

It is not important that you provide specific details about why you are planning a divorce, but your children may want to know why. Older children will know that this is a huge life change, and they may weigh that change against the reasons you give them. So be prepared to give some type of general explanation.

Your children will want to know where they will be living in future and with which parent, and what about their lives is going to change, so be honest about what you know and what you don’t know. The more detail you give to your children about where the departing parent will be living and when they will be seeing him/her, the better. They need to know that they will be able to maintain a quality relationship with both parents.

Parenting after divorce

You can divorce your spouse, but not your family. There are rules parents can follow that will make their lives easier post-divorce. It is extremely important for both parents to create what is called a ‘healthy post-divorce family’.

Realise that you may be completely out of sync with the each other. It may take months if not years for one of you to adjust to the reality of the divorce. It is not unusual for the parent who was considering divorce for a long time to be ready to move on quicker than the parent who may have been taken by surprise and is grieving the loss of the relationship. For the sake of your children, be respectful of these differences.

Don’t rush introducing a new partner. It’s vital that you keep new partners out of the picture for a while. The children must adapt first to the loss they have experienced.

Treat each other like business partners and give each other the respect that the position of parent demands. Many divorced couples treat their employees with more respect than they treat their exes. Yet, the job that has been entrusted to that person is far more important than any other in your life.

Share requests and communicate openly with each other. Let the children see that you communicate openly.

Listen attentively to your children when they speak to you. Encourage them to speak about their own concerns.

Don’t criticise each other. Children don’t need to be privy to adult conversations, and they don’t want to hear personal details about your relationship with their father/mother.

Don’t tell your children all of the unpleasant details of your divorce. Even if your ex was unfaithful. In the end, you may come to understand that you also contributed to the disintegration or your relationship. Feeding your children only one side of the story is misleading and immensely destructive. It is unfair to place your children in a position of having to side with one parent or the other.

Provide your children with routine, consistency and dependability.

Limit familial conflict at all costs. It is one of the most damaging things you can do to your children. Never criticise each other in front of your children. Children see themselves as extensions of their parents, and so they will feel like you are criticising them.

From the book “Everyone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation” – publisher by Random House, by Bertus Preller

Everyone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation – Kindle Version

Everyone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT DIVORCE AND SEPARATION …With one in three marriages now ending in divorce, it is imperative to be informed of the pitfalls, challenges and legal aspects involved in divorce and separation. Other rules and laws may apply to the many couples who prefer to cohabit rather than get married, but they, too, need to be informed of their rights when the relationship breaks down.

Everyone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation will help with the following crucial aspects:  your rights when you get divorced, and the monetary aspects relating to divorce (including the consequences relating to assets and the divisions thereof); maintenance issues;  all factors regarding the children, including how to implement a parenting plan, how much child maintenance will likely be required, and how to file for maintenance and child support;  the procedures to obtain a protection order when there is domestic violence or abuse; an unmarried father’s rights and how to acquire parental rights; and the law on cohabitation, same-sex marriages, and how to draft a proper cohabitation agreement. 

Everyone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation will prove to be an indispensable and comprehensive guide at a time when everyone needs expert guidance the most.

In the Foreword of the book, Judge Denis Davis says the following:

“Bertus Preller has filled a very significant gap with this timely book, in that in plain language, he provides a comprehensive guide to the broader community through the thicket of law that now characterises this legal landscape. Having said that, many lawyers, particularly those who do not specialise in the field, will also find great assistance in this work.

From engagement, through the legal nature of the ceremony, to the legal consequences of marriage or civil union and on to divorce with all its complex consequences, the reader will find clear explanations for any or all issues which may vex him/her during this journey.

Early on in the text, Mr Preller makes a vital point – litigation is truly the option of last resort in the event of a matrimonial dispute. The adversarial process which is the manner in which law operates is not at all conducive to a settlement of issues, particularly custody of minor children, which have a long-lasting and vital impact on the lives, not only of the antagonists but also the children who have not, in any way, caused the problem giving rise to the forensic battle.

Often in my experience on the Bench, I have wondered how such vicious and counter productive litigation can be allowed to continue. Lawyers will point to clients, whose disappointment in the breakdown of the marriage now powers such adverse feelings to their erstwhile partner, as the core reason for the ‘legal fight to the finish’. I would hope that, in all such or potential cases, the parties consult this work, which may add some rationality to the process or, in the occasional case, will enable the parties to reassess the legal advice they have been given, thereby allowing a non-litigious settlement of proceedings.

Whatever the context, however, it is important that arcane and often incomprehensible legal jargon be made accessible to those affected by the law. In this way, ordinary citizens can ensure that their rights work for them and at the same time they are assisted to grasp fully the implications of the obligations that the law imposes upon them.

In providing such a gateway to those who are or may be affected by this area of law, which given its nature is the vast majority of the country, Mr Preller has made a significant contribution to ensuring that, in this area, access to justice will become a reality.

- Judge Dennis Davis”

The book will be on the shelves of all major book stores on 1 May 2013 and may be pre-ordered on Amazon.com

From time to time one comes across an intransigent parent who is incapable of objectivity when considering what is best for the child. It may well be that you do not like your partner, but the child’s view of the parent is different. He or she will have love and trust for that person, capable of transcending even the most dreadful scenes that may have been witnessed.

Unfortunately it occurs often that one parent use the machinery of the law in a wrongful manner in an attempt to “legally abduct” or alienate a child by making false allegations against or about the other parent.  Often one would find that a parent will for example falsely accuse the other parent of sexually molesting the child or accusing the other parent of emotional abuse towards the child. In a recent matter a mother who was the custodian parent brought an application for a protection order against the father on behalf of their 8 year old daughter because according to her the father abused the child emotionally, when the father in fact only disciplined the child. The father was trying to make telephonic contact with his daughter for days but the mother frustrated the contact by not answering the phone and replying to his sms messages. When the father eventually did manage to speak to his daughter he disciplined her over the phone for not contacting him. The child burst out in tears and the mother used the incident as the basis for a protection order against the father for alleged emotional abuse of the child. The court granted an interim protection order in the father’s absence and the father was only able to see his child under supervision, previously the father had contact with his child every alternate weekend. A social worker was then appointed as well as a psychologist to investigate. Needless to say the child was dragged through court appearances at the Children’s court.

A child prevented from seeing a parent, they still love will eventually turn the resentment against the one trying to enforce the unenforceable. Parents often fail to comprehend the impact on the children of the conflict in their relationship. The adults in the child’s life, can make the divorce and separation experience for a child much less harmful by being aware of several ways to help the child:

The child must feel and experience unconditional love from each parent.

The child must feel free of fault for the divorce and separation.

The child must feel that each parent respects the rights of the other parent.

The child must feel that he/she will be okay after the divorce and separation.

The child must feel that each parent will be okay after the divorce and separation.

Children sense and feel their parent’s emotions and especially the parent’s emotions toward one another. During a divorce and separation, adults experience some very strong and difficult emotions. It is difficult for a human being to understand how he/she could have so much love and passion for another person at one point in time, and then later have so much disdain and even hatred for that same person. It is okay for parents to talk to the child about the fact that they don’t love each other any more  but the child must hear, sense, and feel that while the parents don’t love each other any more and don’t want to live in the same house, they do respect each other’s rights as a parent to the child. For example, both parents should encourage the child to spend time with the other parent, to respect to the other parent, to obey the other parent, and to love the other parent. This can be very difficult when a parent thinks the other is making poor decisions.

The goal for divorced or separated parents should always be to maintain the best co-parenting relationships possible by moving past previous relationship issues and focusing on children’s well-beings. Conflict within a relationship or marriage where there are children involved or after a divorce or separation is the most harmful thing parents can do for their children’s development. If children go through their parents’ divorce, they have lost some access to both their parents to an extent. If the parental combat continues, the children have not only lost that access, they are still involved in that conflict and it harms children. Focusing on the children instead of the relationship problems can help divorced couples to be better parents, not messed up parents.

Source: http://voices.news24.com/bertus-preller/2013/03/if-you-do-mess-up-your-marriage-or-relationship-please-dont-mess-up-your-children-in-the-process/

Bertus Preller

Family Law Attorney

Abrahams and Gross Inc. – Cape Town

Twitter: bertuspreller

Web: http://www.divorceattorney.co.za

Divorce Attorney Melissa Ellis

Melisa Ellis joined Abrahams and Gross in Cape Town as a Junior Associate in 2013 and practises in the Family Law Department. Having attended Stellenbosch University she obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree in 2010. Melissa completed her articles at the law firm Heyns and Partners in Cape Town. Her areas of expertise are uncontested divorces, international divorce law, unmarried father’s rights, same-sex disputes and domestic violence matters.

Mariska Taylor Family and Divorce Law Attorney

Mariska Taylor joined Abrahams and Gross in Cape Town as a Junior Associate in 2012 and practises in the Family Law Department. Having attended Stellenbosch University she obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree in 2010. Mariska completed her articles at the law firm Van Der Spuy and Partners in Cape Town.

Mariska is regarded as a specialist on unmarried fathers rights and maintenance law and have dealt with numerous child maintenance and spousal maintenance cases before the maintenance court. In addition Mariska also specialises in divorce law, care and contact and parental responsibilities and rights disputes.

Trends

The 2011 data was published in December 2012 by Statistics South Africa. 20 980 divorces from civil marriages were processed. This indicates a decrease of 1 956 (8,5%) divorces from the 22 936 cases processed in 2010, which may largely be explained by some 2011 divorce forms that did not reach Statistics South Africa before the publication. The total number of divorces generally fluctuated over the period 2002–2011, with the highest number observed in 2005 (32 484) and the lowest in 2011 (20 980).

Population groups

Couples from the white population group dominated the number of divorces between 2002 and 2007, after which the black African couples had the highest number of divorces up to 2011. In 2002, 45,2% of the divorcees were from the white population group whereas 22,5% came from the black African group. By 2011, 35,8% of the divorcees were from the black African population group and 32,1% from the white population group. The proportions of the divorcees from the coloured and the Indian/Asian population groups were quite invariable during the ten-year period. However, there was a notable increase in the proportions of divorcees from the coloured population group (from 13,9% in 2010 to 16,6% in 2011).  The data show that there were more females 10 408 (49,6%) than males 7 212 (34,4%) who instituted divorce (plaintiffs). With the exception of females from the black African population who had a lower proportion of plaintiffs (39,7%), the proportion of female plaintiffs from other population groups was above 50,0%. That is, 56,8%, 56,2% and 52,4% of plaintiffs from the white, coloured and Indian/Asian population groups, respectively, were females.

Occupations that divorce

A high proportion of the plaintiffs (13,5% of the males and 19,4% of the females) did not indicate the type of occupation they were engaged in at the time of divorce. In addition, 27,3% and 30,6% of the males and females respectively were not economically active at the time of divorce. For specified occupations, most of those who divorced in 2011 were in clerical and sales occupations (11,5%) and managers and administrators (10,2%), with some differences observed by sex of the plaintiff. Husbands who divorced were largely managers and administrators (14,7%) while females who divorces were mainly in clerical and sales occupations (18,2%). Less than a quarter of males (23,6%) and females (20,2%) were in the professional and managerial occupations. Very few plaintiffs were in farming and related occupations.

Number of times married

The 2011 divorce cases for both males and females were mainly from individuals who had married once. About 80,0% of divorces for males and females were from first-time marriages compared to approximately 10,0% from second-time marriages. About 2,0% of males and females were getting divorced for at least the third time.

Age at the time of divorce

The median ages at divorce in 2011 were 42 years for males and 38 years for females, indicating that males generally divorced at older ages than females, with a difference of about four years. The median age for males was up from 41 years in 2010 while it remained the same for females for 2010 and 2011. The pattern of median ages in 2011 by population group shows that black African males had the highest median age (43 years) at the time of divorce while females from the mixed group had the lowest median age (34 years). The age difference at the time of divorce was highest for black African couples (five years) and was between two and three years for other couples. Although there are differences in the ages at which most males and females from the various population groups divorced, the age patterns are quite similar. The data reveal that there were fewer divorces among the younger (less than 25 years old) and the older (55 years and older) divorcees. For male divorcees, the peak age group at divorce was 35–39 for Indian/Asian and coloured population groups while the peak for the black African and white population groups was 40–44. In the case of females, the peak age group was generally at age group 35–39 for all population groups.

Duration of marriage of divorcing couples

The largest number [5 535 (26,4%)] of the divorces were for marriages that lasted between five and nine years. This group is followed by marriages that lasted less than five years [4 489 (21,4%)]. Thus, almost half (47,8%) of the 20 980 divorces in 2011 were marriages that lasted for less than 10 years. Divorces for the black African, coloured and Indian/Asian population groups occurred mostly to couples who had married for five to nine years whereas for the white population group those that divorced did so mostly during their first five years of marriage. Furthermore, the number of divorces for the white population consistently declined as the duration of marriage increased and this pattern is observed for marriages lasting for five to nine years for the other population groups.

Divorces involving couples with children

In 2011, 11 475 (54,7%) of the 20 980 divorces had children younger than 18 years. The proportions of divorces with children were quite high among the coloured population group (64,4%), Indians/Asians (57,8%) and the black Africans (57,1%). The distribution of the number of children affected by divorce shows that 37,4% were from the black African population group; 27,1% from the white population group and 20,2% from the coloured population group. There were 18 571 children (younger than 18 years old) involved in divorce indicating that, on average, there was between one and two children per divorce.

Source: http://voices.news24.com/bertus-preller/2013/02/latest-south-african-divorce-statistics  

Compiled by:

Bertus Preller

Family Law Attorney

Abrahams and Gross Inc.

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

O: +27 (0) 21 422 1323

Twitter: @bertuspreller

Source:

http://voices.news24.com/bertus-preller/2013/01/january-is-divorce-season 

Divorces follow the seasons and divorce season is upon us.

It is a well-known fact that divorces in January and February dramatically increase. Spouses do not want to upset the apple cart over the holidays, and they need a peaceful Christmas or New Year’s. And then, because they do not want to spend another lost year with that spouse of theirs, as soon as the holidays are over they pull the plug and file for divorce.

While there are no specific reasons this can be related to the fact that people don’t want to interrupt their summer holiday so they wait until it is over before filing for divorce. Couples are also forced to spend more time together on holiday during which time they come to the conclusion that they are totally incompatible. Some people reach the New Year with the idea that they do not ever want to have to spend another Christmas with exactly the same group of family. Another reason may be that couples stay together until the children leave the house, a daughter may be getting married, so her parents wait until after her wedding to file for divorce.

These days people work often far too hard to make a living, so they do not see enough of each other to keep their relationships working as they should. Instead of talking to one another about their problems they ignore them until Christmas when they appear with a vengeance.

Worse of all is that Christmas is expensive, and couples argue more about money than about anything else so when the pricey presents start piling up the arguments increase. People often overspend on money during the festive season, and when there is a financial breakdown, often the whole marriage breaks down and comes to a halt.

The reality is that divorce makes financial problems even more worse. In marriage, every burden is generally shared but in divorce the burdens are double, not just emotionally, but also financially. One house usually becomes two houses, one electricity bill, two electricity bills and two lifestyles to deal with so when a marriage breaks down everyone usually has to suffer.

If you are considering divorce, here are some tips to consider:

Can your marriage be saved? Divorce can be expensive and will have an emotional toll for you and your children that can last for many years. You must ask yourself if you have done everything possible to avoid divorce. If there is the slightest chance to reconcile counselling should be considered.

Have a plan. Become familiar with our divorce laws and your marital regime. The latter will be crucial when there are assets to be divided. When there are children involved make sure that the decisions that you take is in their best interests. Remember that a child needs the involvement of both parents post-divorce, so for the sake of your children act like adults. It is not always the divorce that is detrimental but the conflict in the divorce.

Build a support network, remember that divorce is also hard on those close to you your family and friends.

Save, divorce is not cheap. Besides legal fees, you will also need extra cash to create a new household. In addition, you should expect disagreements with your spouse about who pays what. Talk to your attorney about a temporary maintenance application (pending finalization of the divorce) and an application for a contribution to your legal expenses. Many spouses are unaware of the chance to obtain a court order against the other spouse for a contribution to his/her legal costs.

Protect your safety. Filing for a divorce may unleash angry and potentially violent feelings and reactions. Before you do file for divorce, think about how your spouse may react, and consider obtaining a restraining order if there is a history of violence in your family.

Put your children first. It is critical to reassure them that they are not at fault. It is also important that both parents tell the children that they are loved, as angry as you might be, it is imperative not to belittle your spouse in front of your children.

Get your documents in order. Before you do file for divorce, get all important documents in order, make copies and start your own file. You should know the status of all accounts, assets and liabilities, the balances of current and savings accounts, debts, the sources and the amount of income entering the home each month as well as the monthly expenses.

Bertus Preller

Family Law Attorney

Abrahams and Gross Inc. – Cape Town – 021 422 1323

Follow him on Twitter: @bertuspreller

Web: www.divorceattorney.co.za

Source: http://voices.news24.com/bertus-preller/2012/12/december-the-month-when-child-kidnapping-is-on-the-increase/

December is not always the month of fun, happiness and laughter for all parents. For some it could also be a nightmare, particularly when a child is abducted. It is typically in holiday season when abduction of children is on the increase. The increase in parental child abduction cases is a major cause for concern. Before or during school holidays it is one of the most common times for a child to be abducted by an estranged parent. Parental child abduction is not faith or country specific. The number of children abducted and taken abroad by an estranged parent has risen by 88% in just under a decade, according to new government figures released in the United Kingdom. In the UK it is estimated more than 140,000 children go missing every year, one every three minutes. The statistic was calculated by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which includes teenage runaways, parental abductions and kidnappings. According to the statistics last year alone the UK Foreign Office’s Child Abduction Section fielded an average of 4 calls per day to its specialist advice line, more than half of which were new cases. Cases were worked on in 84 different countries, showing just how widespread the problem has become.

Each year, 800,000 children are reported missing in the United States, including some who are lost, injured, have run away from home or are abducted. Of those who are abducted, 200,000 are taken by family members, typically during a custody battle, while 58,000 involve non-family members who are familiar to the child and who typically have targeted the child.

Trafficking in children is a global problem affecting large numbers of children. According to UNICEF some estimates have as many as 1.2 million children begin trafficked every year.

According to figures that was released by the South African Police Service Missing Persons Bureau a child goes missing every six hours in South Africa, it means that 1460 children per year goes missing. According to Missing Children South Africa an organisation registered with Department of Social Development at least 13% of these children are never located.

There are 3 types of abductions:

When a stranger takes a child away for criminal purposes (such as sexual assault or ransom – the latter would be classified as a kidnapping in South Africa). When a child is stolen to be brought up by the abductor. When a parent removes a child from the other parent’s care.

Viewing the Facebook profile of Missing Children SA one grasps how common child abduction in South Africa really is. There are plentiful posts of children being abducted by one of the parents. One of the posts on Facebook read: “Christine Kayla Bodden (9) was last seen on the 8 December 2012 with her mother in January in Masilela Drive (General Louis Botha Avenue), Constantia Park, Pretoria, near Hatfield Christian Church. Christine was wearing purple floral shorts, a white t-shirt and flip flops. They may be in the Pretoria suburbs Arcadia / Sunnyside, or may be seeking accommodation at backpacker’s lodges around SA”.

Not long ago there was the case of Stefano Cavinato an Italian American father of a little two year old boy called Matteo Cavinato. Matteo’s mother a South African and was living in the United States since 1995. During 2011, she fell pregnant from a man of Botswana and wanted to move to South Africa with the child. The parties became embroiled in litigation in the United States to determine care and contact (custody) over for the child. An interim order was granted for the parties to have joint custody and residence. However, on 4 February 2012, the mother, Nontobeko Tsotetsi, boarded a plane in the United States without the father’s knowledge or consent, using a false passport for the child and arrived in SA the next day.

Her conduct was in breach of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, and the South African Central Authority (Family Advocate), acting on instruction of the American Central Authority, brought an application for the child to be returned to the USA so that the United States court could continue to determine issues the parental responsibility disputes. The High Court in Cape Town then was then approached and the return of the child was ordered. However, the mother sent the father a text message to say she would rather die, and disappeared with the child. The police, courts, Family Advocate and private investigators were all involved in the search eventually the mother and child was found and the child was returned to his father in the United States.

Phillip Dexter well-known politician also opened a case of abduction against his ex-wife last year for apparently leaving the country with his five-year-old daughter without his consent.

Many countries have adopted the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This is a treaty designed to expedite the return of children back to their country of habitual residence, in cases where they have been wrongfully removed. The Hague Convention aims to curb international abductions of children by providing judicial remedies to those seeking the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained. It provides a simplified procedure for seeking the return of a child to his/her country of habitual residence.

As a matter of fact, the child can remain in the care of the abducting parent, if they choose to return together with the child. The elements of a cause of action for the return of an abducted child under the Hague Convention are that:

- the child was habitually resident of the country from which the child was abducted;
- petitioning parent had either sole or joint rights of custody of the child either through a custody order or de jure (by operation of law); and
- at the time of removal, petitioning parent was exercising those rights.

Bertus Preller

Family Law Attorney

Abrahams and Gross Inc.

E: bertus@divorceattorney.co.za

Twitter: @bertuspreller

“When you’re in a broken family and your role model is a violent male, boys grow up believing that’s the way they’re supposed to act. And girls think that’s an accepted way men will treat them.” –Rep. Jim Costa

On 25 November 2012 the 16 days of activism for no violence against women and children commenced and will end on 10 December 2012. It is an international campaign and takes place every year from 25 November (International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women) to 10 December (International Human Rights Day). During this time, the South African Government runs a 16 Days of Activism Campaign to make people aware of the negative impact of violence on women and children and to act against abuse. It is estimated that one in every four women is assaulted by an intimate partner every week, that one adult woman out of every six is assaulted by her partner, and that in at least 46% of these cases, the men involved also abuse the woman’s children.

It is extremely important to increase awareness of abuse and build support for victims and survivors of abuse. South Africa has one of the highest incidences of domestic violence in the world. And, sadly, domestic violence is the most common and widespread human rights abuse in South Africa. Every day, women are murdered, physically and sexually assaulted, threatened, and humiliated by their partners, within their own homes. Organisations estimate that one out of every six women in South Africa is regularly assaulted by her partner. More than 56 000 rapes and sexual offences were reported in South Africa in the 2010 financial year. This equates to 154 reported sexual offences each day. It is conservatively estimated that only one in ten sexual offences are reported, due to a lack of faith in the system. In 2010, most incidents of assault 35,7%, occurred at home. 29,8% of sexual offences took place at home and 18,5% of sexual offences took place at someone else’s home. The available data also indicates that incidents of domestic violence, in which especially women are victims, are increasing. A recent survey conducted in Gauteng found that half the women living in Gauteng 51.3% have experienced abuse or violence, and 75.5% of men admitted to perpetrating abuse or violence against women. The same study found that one in four women had experienced sexual violence, and 37.4% of men disclosed perpetrating sexual violence

According to Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) statistics last year, up to 65% of police stations were not compliant with the Domestic Violence Act, which means that they were not providing the necessary support to victims of domestic violence and 53% of domestic violence victims were incorrectly told they were not allowed to lay a charge after being abused and 96% of domestic violence victims were not given information on their rights, such as having the right to apply for a Protection Order when they go to their local police station. It is inconceivable that a woman who has had to endure the trauma of being abused by a family member or partner is subjected to the indignity of having their case poorly managed by the police.

Although the exact percentages are in dispute, there is a large amount of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men. In addition, there is consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are more likely to be injured by an abusive partner. Determining how many instances of domestic violence actually involve male victims is difficult. Some studies have shown that women who assaulted their male partners were more likely to avoid arrest even when the male victim contacts the police. Another study concluded that female perpetrators are viewed by law enforcement as victims rather than the actual offenders of violence against men. Other studies have also demonstrated a high degree of acceptance of aggression against men by women. Domestic violence also occurs in same-sex relationships. Gay and lesbian relationships have been identified as a risk factor for abuse in certain populations. Historically, domestic violence has been seen as a family issue and little interest has been directed at violence in same-sex relationships.

Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behaviour that transgresses the right of citizens to be free from violence. When one partner in a relationship harms the other to obtain or maintain power and control over them, regardless of whether they are married or unmarried, living together or apart, that is domestic violence. The ‘harm’ can take a variety of forms, whether it be from verbal abuse like shouting, emotional abuse like manipulation, control and/or humiliation, physical abuse like hitting and/or punching, and/or sexual abuse like rape and/or inappropriate touching of either the woman or her children.

The majority of adult victims are women. The victims and survivors are not more likely to belong to any particular racial, cultural or language groups. The majority of perpetrators are male and usually live with the victim at the time of the abuse. There is an important association between the propensity to domestic violence and drug and alcohol use.

What can you do if you are abused?

Domestic violence is regulated by the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998. The Act was introduced in 1998 with the purpose of affording women protection from domestic violence by creating obligations on law enforcement bodies, such as the South African Police Services, to protect victims as far as possible. The Act attempts to provide victims of domestic violence with an accessible legal instrument with which to prevent further abuses taking place within their domestic relationships. The Act recognises that domestic violence is a serious crime against our society, and extends the definition of domestic violence to include not only married women and their children, but also unmarried women who are involved in relationships or living with their partners, people in same-sex relationships, mothers and their sons, and other people who share a living space.

A protection order, also called a restraining order or domestic violence interdict is a court order which tells an abuser to stop the abuse and sets certain conditions preventing the abuser from harassing or abusing you again. It may also help ensure that the abuser continue to pay rent or a bond or interim maintenance.  The protection order may also prevent the person from getting help from any other person to commit such acts. Victims may also file a criminal charge in addition to obtaining a protection order and get a court order to have the perpetrator’s gun removed, if applicable. Other remedies may also be available, depending on the exact nature of the abuse.

A restraining order can be applied for at your local magistrate’s court.

Important Numbers:

Women Abuse Helpline:  0800 150 150

Childline:    0800 055 555

SAPS Crime Stop:   08600 10111

Bertus Preller

Family Law Attorney

Twitter: @bertuspreller

Email: bertus@divorceattorney.co.za

Tel:  021 422 1323

Source: http://voices.news24.com/bertus-preller/2012/11/abuse-and-domestic-violence-south-africa/ 

South Africa is a party state of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International child abduction. South Africa ratified the convention in 1996 and it came in operation on 1 October 1997. Emphasis is placed on securing the prompt return of any child wrongfully removed to or retained in a contracting state.

The Hague Convention is a treaty designed to expedite the return of children back to their country of habitual residence, in cases where they have been wrongfully removed. Habitual residence sometimes differs from citizenship and nationality. The Hague convention aims to curb the international abductions of children by providing additional remedies to those seeking the return of the child were a child has been wrongfully removed or retained. It provides a simplified procedure for seeking the return of the child to his/her country of habitual residence.

The purpose for of the speedy return is to place the child in the jurisdiction of a court that is best appraised to deal with the merits of the parental dispute. A child removed from one parent and taken to a country different from that in which the child was habitually resident is then likely to be subject to the concentrated influence of the custodial parents.  Unless firm steps are taken to ensure the prompt implementation of the Convention procedures, in a prolonged separation from a parent his or her influence on the child would have a tendency to wane.  Time would favour the abductor. The parent remaining in the place of the child’s habitual residence, from which the child is taken, would ordinarily be at a considerable disadvantage in litigating a contested claim for custody and access (or equivalent orders) in the courts of another country rather than those of the place of habitual residence.

Few persons can readily afford litigation in their own jurisdiction, still less contemplate the prospect of participating in courts (or administrative authorities) far away, where the legal system may be different, laws and even language unfamiliar, costs substantial and facilities for legal assistance difficult to obtain or non-existent.

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where -

a)      it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention, and

b)      at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

The rights of custody mentioned in (a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of judicial or administrative, or by reason of an agreement having legal affect under the law of that State. The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights.

Where a child has been wrongfully retained and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one (1) year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal of retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.

In practice, applications are generally heard on an urgent basis or semi-urgent basis by way of notice of motion proceedings. Inevitably, the overriding principle that our courts have regard to is the best interest of the child principle. In South African law the right to consent or refuse the removal of the child from South Africa is entrenched in the concept of guardianship. In terms of section 18 (2)(c) of the Children’s Act, 38 of 2005), a person who has parental responsibilities and rights in respect of a child has the right to act as guardian of the child. In terms of section 18 (3)(c)(iii) of the Act a guardian must consent to the child’s departure or removal from South Africa and where more than one person on has guardianship over a child all of them must consent before the child can be removed.

The role of the Central Authority

A contracting state is bound to set up an administrative body known as a “Central Authority”, which has the duty to trace the child and to take steps to secure a child’s return. In South Africa the Chief Family Advocate is designated as Central Authority.

The Central Authority assists in both “outgoing” cases (when a child has been wrongfully taken from South Africa to a foreign country or retained in a foreign country, as well as “incoming” cases (when a child has been wrongfully brought to, or retained in South Africa). A party may submit an application for the return of a child, or access to a child to the Central Authority.

What does habitual residence mean?

This concept is not defined by the Convention itself. It has been interpreted according to “the ordinary and natural meaning of the two words it contains, as a question of fact, to be decided by reference to all the circumstances of any particular case” The intention thereby is to avoid the development of restrictive rules as to the meaning of habitual residence, so that the facts and circumstances of each can be assessed free of presuppositions and presumptions. However, the fact that there is no “objective temporal baseline” on which to base a definition of habitual residence requires that close attention be paid to the subjective intent when evaluating an individual’s habitual residence. When a child is removed from its habitual environment, the implication is that it is being removed from the family and social environment in which its life has developed, The word “habitual’ implies a stable territorial link, which may be achieved through length of stay, or through evidence of a particularly close tie between the person and the place. A number of reported foreign judgements have established that the possible prerequisite for “habitual residence” is some “degree of settled purpose” or “intention”. A settled intention or settled purpose is clearly one which will not be temporary.

What can South African parents do when a former spouse or partner has abducted a child and taken them abroad?

Establish the details of the departure and destination of the abducting parent and/or the child. The left behind parent has an option of approaching the office of the designated Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa, which is the office of the Chief Family Advocate or the Central Authority of the country where the child has been abducted to. The abducted child must be below 16 years of age. In order to facilitate the processing of the application in the office of the Chief Family Advocate, the left behind parent furnish the following documents:

• Original or certified copies of setting out care and contact (custody) and/or guardianship rights. Examples of these are marriage certificate, court orders granting the alleged rights, unabridged birth certificates, parenting plan or parental rights and responsibilities agreement etc;

• Recent photographs of the abductor as well as the child;

• A detailed sworn statement setting out the exact facts and circumstances that led to the alleged abduction;

• Copies of all pleadings filed in pending litigation in South African courts, where applicable.

If the parent who has taken a child overseas feel that the left behind parent in South Africa is abusive, a danger to the child or cannot provide adequate care for the child, can the parent defend his/her actions, in terms the Hague Convention and SA Children’s Act?

The Hague Convention makes provision for the abducting parent to oppose the application for return of the child. When there is a grave risk that the return of the child will expose the child to physical, psychological harm, or would place the child in intolerable situation, then the court hearing the application is not bound to order the return of the child. Mere allegations of grave risk will not persuade a court to refuse the return; it must be shown that the risk is a serious or that the envisaged harm is of significant proportion.

What countries are subscribed to the Hague Convention?

Most European and Commonwealth countries and the USA are members. On the African continent, only South Africa, Mauritius and Zimbabwe subscribed to the convention. When a child is removed to another country that is not a party state to the convention, the South African High Court, as the upper Guardian of the minor children, will have jurisdiction and the application should be made to such a court for the return of the child.

What are the steps to be taken in recovering an abducted child, in terms of the Hague Convention and SA Children’s Act?  

The South African Central Authority (CA) must immediately after receipt of the necessary documents consider the legal aspects of the request as well as the Convention status of the country to which the child has been taken.

If the child has been taken to a contracting country and all legalities have been satisfied, the CA will compile a bundle and forward the application to the foreign CA, requesting prompt return of the child. The procedure does not apply where a child has been taken to a non-Convention country. All CA’s are required by the Convention to take steps to obtain a voluntary return of the child. This is done through cross-border mediation. Litigation is resorted to in the event that the mediation fails. This approach is also consistent with the general principles set out in the Children’s Act, namely, that in any matter concerning a child ‘an approach which is conducive to conciliation and problem-solving should be followed’.

It is however, important that the left-behind parent alert the Central Authority to the possibility of further movement/possible harm to the child, should the abducting parent know of the application for return. In such cases the CA will take steps to obtain an urgent court order to prevent further movement of, or possible harm to the child.

How does the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction relate to care and contact (custody) rulings made in South African civil courts?

An order granting care and contact can be used as proof of the existence of parental rights by the parent seeking return of the abducted child. Where an abductor seeks an order in the South African court, which will have an effect of ratifying the wrongfulness of the removal or retention of the child in South Africa the CA will invoke article 16 of the Convention to stop or suspend the proceedings until a decision has been made on the return of the child to his/her country of habitual residence. The judicial authorities/courts of a contracting state to which a child has been taken or retained are required by the Convention not decide on the merits of custody rights until a determination has been made that the child will not be returned.

There are limitations to the treaty’s application, in that the Convention applies only between countries that have adopted it as “Contracting States.” What are the procedures for recovering a child from a non-Contracting State?

From a South African perspective, it is advisable that the left behind parent obtain an order through the normal civil procedures, which declare the removal/retention of the child unlawful and a breach of their parental rights. Once such an order has been obtained, the left behind parent must obtain a mirror order or an order for enforcement in the foreign jurisdiction which also orders return of the child. This route is very expensive as it involves the instruction of lawyers in foreign countries. For this reason, the Hague Conference on Private International Law is taking steps to encourage other countries to consider contracting under this Convention.

Are there time frames that apply under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?

Among the most popular defences that have been raised in return applications is that the child objects to the return. In such instances, an assessment must be made, usually through the assistance of a Family Counsellor or psychologist, whether the child possesses sufficient maturity to form a viewpoint that the court may consider. The child’s reasons for the objection will also be examined in order to exclude possible influence by the abducting parent.

Some of the defences available are that the removal was not wrongful, that the left behind parent was not exercising his/her parental rights at the time of removal or retention, or that the left behind parent had agreed or subsequently acquiesced to the removal/retention:

Where available evidence indicates that the child has become settled in the new environment the court may not necessarily order a return. In cases where a child’s return would be contrary to the South Africa’s fundamental principles relating to protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, our courts are also under no obligation to order the return of the child.

A court may withhold permission to return the child for the following reasons:

• that the child is above the age of 16 years and therefore not covered by the Convention.
• If a child has been wrongfully removed for less than one year, the child’s removal is to be ordered forthwith under the Convention. The Convention makes it mandatory for the judicial authority to order return.
• If a child has been wrongfully removed for more than one year, the child should still be returned but an exception is allowed -a court may choose not to return the child if there is evidence that the child is settled in his/her new environment. The court has discretion to order/refuse the return.
• Courts and administrative authorities should act quickly in such cases but if one has not reached a decision within six weeks from the date proceedings commenced, an applicant or the Central Authority of the requested State may officially request a reason for the delay.
• The Convention only applies to wrongful removals/retentions occurring after the treaty became effective between the involved countries.
• The Convention requires that countries act without delay in child abduction cases that fall within its parameters. It is one of the objectives of the Convention to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures of ensuring prompt return of children to their country of habitual residence. The aim is to ensure that a competent court in the country of habitual residence decide on the merits of custody, access and even permanent removal to another country. This is based on the premise that court in the country of habitual residence is better apprised to obtain all relevant evidence regarding the merits of custody, care and contact and in a better position to grant an order that will be in the best interests of and/or least detrimental to the welfare of the child. For this reason, the Hague Convention is deemed to be consistent with our applicable laws and the Constitution, through affording the best interests of the child paramount importance.

Compiled by:

Bertus Preller
Family Law Attorney

Abrahams and Gross Inc. Cape Town

Although the novel Fifty Shades of Grey portrays Anastasia Steele as a submissive woman, more women are ending marriages and are filing for divorce these days, proving the point that women in general, are not as submissive as men would want them to be.

In the past the majority of Plaintiffs (the party initiating divorce) in South Africa were male, these days they are in fact women.

Recent figures released by the Department of Statistics has revealed that there were more female (49,8%) than male (35,9%) plaintiffs in divorces instituted during 2010.

According to the statistics there were significant differences among population groups. Among the white population group 55,8% of the wives filed for divorce compared to 41,3% of wives among the African population group.

Even though a high proportion of the plaintiffs did not indicate the type of occupation they were engaged in at the time of divorce, the highest percentage of wives (18,9%) were in clerical and sales occupations whereas husbands (15,3%) were in managerial and administrative occupations.

Adultery has become more common with the introduction of infidelity websites such as Ashley Madison.com with their slogan “Life is short have an affair”. Years ago it was more likely men who committed adultery, but research into the behaviour of 4,000 cases of infidelity in the UK claimed that women in general are more promiscuous, having an average of 2.3 secret lovers compared to a mere 1.8 for men. The survey found that while unfaithful men have their first affair until almost six years of married life the average female cheater strays just five years after exchanging wedding vows.

Catherine Hakim, a British social scientist and bestselling author argues that a “sour and rigid English view” of infidelity is condemning millions of people to live frustrated “celibate” lives with their spouses. According to her sex is no more a moral issue than eating a good meal. This view may be a bit skew especially since her view propagates the moral decline of our society.

She attacks the traditional morality and also accuses relationship counsellors and therapists of trying to “pedal a secret agenda of enforced exclusive monogamy”. Her argument is that the rise of the internet, has brought about a change in sexual behaviour on a par with the invention of the contraceptive Pill. Adultery is now, she says, simply the “21st-century approach to marriage”.

It is a fact that children living in families with greater parental supportiveness, from both mothers and fathers and less marital conflict live healthier lives. History repeats itself many times before we really learn that values matter. Families matter, moral courage matters, honour and integrity matter. Not only for individual happiness and prosperity, but more importantly for the good and strengthening of our society. The most important cause of our lifetime must be our family.  Devoting ourselves to this cause will improve every other aspect of our lives.

Source: http://voices.news24.com/bertus-preller/2012/09/beware-men-more-women-are-suing-for-divorce-these-days/

Bertus Preller

Family Law Attorney

Abrahams and Gross Inc.

Twitter: bertuspreller

Blog: http://www.divorceattorneys.wordpress.com 

Tel:  021 422 1323