Divorce Attorney Cape Town

Download Free Family Law eBooks


Bertus Preller & Associates Inc.

Bertus Preller & Associates Inc., has made a number of eBooks freely available for download by the general public on all aspects of Family Law, Divorce and Separation. eBooks that are currently available to be downloaded for free include the following:

  • Domestic Violence and Abuse
  • Spousal and Child Maintenance
  • Marital Regimes – In Community of Property, Out of Community of Property, with or without accrual
  • Finances and Divorce
  • Emotions and Divorce
  • Harassement
  • Relocation and Child Abduction
  • Divorce and Retirement Funds
  • 60 Questions on Divorce

 

Further topics will follow soon.

To download these books, simply click on the download Banner below:

download

 

Brought to you by:

Bertus Preller & Associates Inc.
Unit 5, 1st Floor, 10 Pepper Street, Cape Town, 8000
Also consulting at:
Suite 102, 1st Floor, Big Bay Office Park, 16 Beach Estate Boulevard, Big Bay, Cape Town, 7441 and at 39 Plein Street, Stellenbosch, 7600.
Telephone: Cape Town Office: +27 21 422-2461, Big Bay Office: +27870735747
E-mail:  law(@)preller.co.za

Telephone: +27 21 422-2461 or +27 21 422-2573 or +27 21 422-2597
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/divorceattorneys
Twitter: @bertuspreller

 

Maintenance of Children After Divorce


Child Maintenance and Support

The Divorce Act in South Africa makes provision for the maintenance of dependent and minor children of divorcing husbands and wives. A court granting a decree of divorce can make any order which it considers appropriate in regard to the maintenance of a child of the marriage. This particular power of the court does not substitute or change a parent’s common law and statutory responsibility to maintain a child.

It does not follow that simply because there is a responsibility to maintain there should be an award against the non-custodian parent. In view of the absence of an enabling statutory provision in the Divorce Act or the Children’s Act, a parent of an adult child lacks the necessary locus standi in divorce proceedings to claim an order on behalf of such adult child, that the other parent pay certain allowances directly to the child or certain expenses on his or her behalf. Only if the children on their own have the standing to obtain such claim against the other parents. Nevertheless, in terms of section 7(2) of the Divorce Act, a court, when determining a spousal maintenance claim, need to take into account, amongst other factors, the parties’ respective financial needs and obligations, as well as their standard of living during the marriage.

Where the parties have separated and the adult child of the marriage has carried on to live with one parent who has had to use his or her household budget to run the family home and provide groceries for the household, such parent’s responsibility to provide the child with a home, with all that this entails, constitutes an ‘obligation’ within the meaning of section 7(2) of the Divorce Act which can be taken into account in determining the quantum of his or her interim maintenance claim.

If a parent has to pay maintenance for a child in terms of a court order, the fact that the child is visiting him temporarily does not entitle him to suspend or reduce the payment during that period, unless the order contains a specific provision to that effect.

In the assessment of maintenance for children their needs and the parents’ ability to pay are the primary factors but the criterion of the “best interests of the child” must also be considered.

The Maintenance Act provides that a court that convicts a person of an offence in terms of section 31(1) of the Maintenance Act, shall make an order directing any person, obliged under a contract to pay any money to the offender, to make such periodical payments from that money as may be required by the maintenance order. The use of the word “shall” showed that upon conviction a court is obliged to make the order provided that the contractual relationship exists, and the evidence shows that the order will not be impracticable. Such an order is enforceable against a state pension fund.

Compiled by Divorce and Family Law Attorney – Bertus Preller

To reade more on Family Law, Divorce and Separation read at: http://www.divorcelaws.co.za South Africa’s Premier Website on Family Law.

Book review on Everyone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation


Deur Jaco Barnard-Naudé is professor in regsfilosofie aan die Universiteit van Kaapstad.

Book

Ons leef vandag in ‘n wêreld van toenemende vloeibaarheid en pluraliteit op die vlak van persoonlike verhoudings. Die een dag besluit jy en jou beste vriend nog om lewenskoste te beperk deur ‘n woonstel te deel en die volgende dag word die platoniese vriendskap iets meer en julle woon voortaan saam as man en vrou. Of man en man. ‘n Paar jaar later besluit julle om te trou. As julle ‘n eendersgeslagtelike verhouding bedryf, moet julle deur die hekke van die Wet op Burgerlike Verbintenisse, 2006, toegang verkry tot die twyfelagtige groener gras van die huwelik. Heteroseksuele saamwoners het ‘n addisionele (en meer konvensionele) wet beskikbaar waarvolgens hulle in die huwelik kan tree – die Huwelikswet van die Jaar van Onse Heer 1961. As julle byvoorbeeld in Tamboerskloof saamwoon en besluit die huwelik is nie wat julle en ander eende van julle dam wil hê nie, hoef julle nie te trou om die verbintenis regtens erken te kry nie: die 2006-Wet maak voorsiening vir ‘n burgerlike vennootskap wat presies dieselfde gevolge as ‘n huwelik het.

Ek het al hierdie dinge geweet voordat ek hierdie uiters leesbare en akkurate boek onder die oë gehad het, omdat ek vir ‘n regsfakulteit werk en self betrokke was by die totstandkoming van die 2006-Wet. Vir diegene wat tans in ‘n saamwonery van een of ander aard verkeer, dit oorweeg om een of ander Groot Stap (insluitend skeiding van tafel en bed) te doen en nié in die regsberoep werk of betroubare vriende daarin (skaars spesie) het nie, kan ekEveryone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation aanbeveel.

Die titel is ondeurdag. Hoewel die regstema van geregtelike skeiding prominent daarin bespreek word, soos die titel aandui, handel groot gedeeltes daarvan oor die regsgevolge van die totstandkoming van ‘n huwelik of ander permanente saamwoonverhouding. Selfs die gevolge van die totstandkoming van die ouwêreldse “verlowing” (en wat die lô sê oor die verloofring wanneer jy dit in sy gesig terugsmyt) word met erns bespreek. En as lobola deel was van jou huweliksonderhandelinge en jy is getroud ingevolge die Wet op Erkenning van Gewoonteregtelike Huwelike, sal jy interessante dinge lees oor hoe om te verhoed dat jou man se aanhoudende trouery jou nie finansieel benadeel nie.

‘n Groot gedeelte van die boek handel oor die onwillekeurige partye tot ‘n saamwoonverhouding: die kinders. Daar is ‘n omvattende bespreking van wat die verantwoordelikhede teenoor kinders in ‘n gesin is – veral wanneer die ouers se saamwoonverhouding tot ‘n einde kom en ook in gevalle waar Ma en Pa eens saamgewoon, of ten minste saam verkeer, het, maar by geboorte van die kind reeds aanbeweeg het. Die boek stel dit in hierdie konteks direk en duidelik: die kind(ers) sit met die gebakte pere van julle mislukte verhouding sonder dat hulle daarvoor gevra het. Die allerminste wat julle kan doen, is alles in julle vermoë ten einde te verseker dat hulle so onbeskadig as moontlik uit die puin van julle verhouding tree.

Bostaande is maar een rede waarom die skrywer (‘n prokureur) daarvoor pleit dat egskeidings nie in litigasie behoort te eindig nie. Daar is merendeels slegs verloorders in ‘n bestrede egskeiding, en té dikwels, waar kinders betrokke is, is dit húlle wat as pionne in die vuilspel gebruik word en die meeste verloor.

Benewens ‘n omvattende verduideliking van die egskeidingsproses bevat die boek ook heelwat praktiese wenke vir mense wat deur so ‘n proses moet gaan (waartydens gesinsgeweld nie uitgesluit word nie, daarom die hoofstuk oor laasgenoemde). Dit het my lank geneem om die bul by die horings te pak en hierdie boek te lees, want egskeiding is nooit ‘n aangename onderwerp om oor te dink of te lees nie – ons dink veel eerder aan die feeste van die huweliksdag. Maar as jy jou in ‘n skeidingsituasie bevind (en nie in die regsberoep werk of daarin bevriend is nie), moet jy jou, soos vir enige stryd, hoe gemoedelik ook al, bewapen. En Preller se boek is ‘n sterk wapen. Kry dit.

divorce and separation

 

https://plus.google.com/113403548456513232014

Original article at: http://www.litnet.co.za/Article/2013-everyones-guide-to-divorce-and-separation-bertus-preller

Victory for Unmarried Parents in High Court Ruling over Interim Maintenance


child support

A ruling by the Eastern Cape High Court granting unmarried parents who have been in “a life partnership” equal rights to married parents was an “important victory” in child maintenance cases.

The Applicant (mother) approached the Eastern Cape High Court in East London by way of urgency for an order, inter alia, that the Family Advocate institute an enquiry and furnish a report regarding the parental rights and responsibilities of the mother and father and that pending such a report the mother remained the primary carer of the child. Pending the report by the Family Advocate the father was entitled to reasonable contact with the child at all reasonable times every alternate weekend from a Saturday morning at 09h00 until 17h00 and from 09h00 until 17h00 on the Sunday, reasonable telephonic contact, special occasions such as Mother’s Day, Father’s Day etc.

The interesting part of the application was the fact that the mother also asked the court for an order that the father contribute to the child’s maintenance, by the payment of the sum of R3 300.00 per month pending finalisation of the investigation by the Family Advocate into the parental issues and/or until the court made a proper maintenance order.

Facts of the case

The Applicant was the mother of a minor child of approximately 3 years old and the father of the child was the Respondent in the case.  At the time of the child’s birth the child’s parents were in a permanent life-partnership relationship (not married) and thus acquired full and equal parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child.

The parties separated and the mother brought an application in the High Court,  the purpose of the application was to confirm and to grant certain rights to both parents so that in the best interest of their minor child, there was certainty in respect of his primary care contact with the child by both parents as well as maintenance to support his basic needs.

In her papers the mother averred that the minor child and she had been subjected to harm at the instance of the father who has threatened to remove the minor child from the care of the applicant.  The parties were no longer staying together and the child was living in the mother’s care.

The court granted leave to the mother to move the court application as a matter of urgency only on the basis that the father wanted to remove the child from her care. The Respondent’s counsel argued that is that the matter was not urgent and therefore the Court could deal with the mother’s maintenance claim in the High Court.

The court emphasized the fact that the High Court has always been regarded as the upper guardian of all minors in all matters concerning children.  Section 28(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that every child has the right to family care or parental care when removed from the family environment.  To basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care services and social services.  To be protected from maltreatment neglect, abuse or degradation.  It is also important to mention that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.

It is a common practice for some practitioners who appear in the High Court to apply for the dismissal of an application on the only ground that it is not urgent.  In this matter the court found that the application was urgent due to the threat that the father made to remove the child.

A co-holder of parental responsibilities has the right to apply to the High Court, divorce Court or to the Children’s Court for an order suspending for a period or terminating any or all the parental responsibilities and rights which a specific person has in respect of a child.  Or extending or circumscribing the exercise by that person of the parental responsibilities and rights that person has in respect of a child.  Such application may be combined with an application in terms of section 23 of the Children’s Act for the assignment of contact and care in respect of the child to the applicant in terms of that section.  In other words the parental rights and responsibilities as well as guardianship of a minor child can be brought before the High Court.

The parties in this application lived in a permanent life partnership as though they were a married couple.  In the event that they had been married, which they were not, they would have been able to make use of Rule 43 proceedings, a mechanism, inter alia, for speedy and effective resolution of maintenance for minor children pending finalisation of the divorce.  In this case there was no pending matrimonial action and therefore, in the court’s view, the facts of the case were distinguishable from a situation where the provisions of Rule 43 find application.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid the court found that there was nothing preventing the Court from dealing with a maintenance issue even if it is a provisional order of maintenance pending the finalization of the maintenance court enquiry.  The court’s view was that in all maintenance matters involving children the court should endeavour to see to it that they are dealt with as expeditious as is practically possible and found that it was not be in the best interests of a child if the maintenance issue had to be referred back to the maintenance court especially when there was already an indication that it will only be dealt with sometime in a few months because of the busy court roll at the maintenance court.

It is therefore possible for an unmarried mother to obtain urgent interim relief for maintenance of a child pending an investigation by  the Family Advocate’s Office into the care and contact issues of a child.

Divorce Attorney Bertus Preller Consults in Johannesburg


Family Law and Divorce Law Attorney Bertus Preller
Family Law and Divorce Law Attorney Bertus Preller

Bertus Preller  a Family, Divorce Law Attorney, Mediator at Abrahams and Gross in Cape Town, is now consulting on a weekly basis in Sandton Johannesburg. He has nearly 25 years of experience as an attorney and specializes in Family Law and Divorce Law cases across South Africa. Bertus is the author of Everyone’s Guide to Divorce and Separation, published by Random House. He has also been quoted on Family Law issues in various newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times and magazines such as Noseweek, Keur, Living and Loving, Longevity, Woman and Home, Women’s Health, You, Huisgenoot and Fairlady and also appeared on the SABC television show, 3 Talk, Morning Live and on the 5FM Breakfast show with Gareth Cliff. His clients include artists, celebrities, sports people and high net worth individuals.

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, child abduction and Hague Convention cases and domestic violence matters and international divorce law. He will consult in Sandton every Wednesday.

 

To contact Bertus for an appointment:

+27 21 422 1323
+27 83 443 9838

Abrahams and Gross Inc.
1st Floor, 56 Shortmarket Street
Cape Town, 8000

info@divorceattorney.co.za

Web: http://www.divorceattorney.co.za

Twitter: @bertuspreller

Cape Town Attorney Bertus Preller writes South Africa’s first book on Divorce and Separation for the general public


Everyone's Guide to Divorce and Separation - Kindle Version
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

Can a wife claim maintenance from her husband when she lives with another man?


The Supreme court of appeal recently gave an interesting judgement in the matter of Harlech-Jones v Harlech-Jones [2012] ZASCA 19. The question raised in this matter was inter alia whether it would be against public policy for a man to pay maintenance to his wife while she is living with another man.

The appellant appealed against an order obliging him to pay R2 000 per month to his wife of almost 29 years, upon dissolution of their marriage. His principal objection against the order lied in the fact that for some eight years prior to the divorce his wife had been cohabiting with another man. This, the husband contended, disentitled her from receiving maintenance from him.

The parties were married out of community of property in December 1972. Two sons, both majors and self-supporting, were born from their marriage. After 28 years of marriage, the husband left the matrimonial home in Port Elizabeth as he had formed a relationship with another woman and had decided on a new life. He purchased another residence in the city, but his new relationship also failed and within six months he had formed an intimate relationship with another man with whom he had cohabitated.

The wife was friendly with a married couple, whom she had come to know some years previously when their sons attended the same school. Shortly after the husband had moved out of the common home, the friend’s wife passed away. When her husband was already cohabiting with his male partner a relationship began to blossom between the wife and her new partner. With the passage of time the relationship became more intimate and the wife moved into the home and bedroom of her new partner, and they thereafter cohabited as man and wife. During the first two years that they had lived together the wife’s youngest son, lived with them as well.

Although the evidence established that when the wife initially moved in with her partner it was regarded as a temporary arrangement, the relationship between them matured over the almost eight years that they had lived together before the trial. By then they both regarded their relationship as permanent and neither had any intention of terminating it. The wife’s partner supported her unconditionally and was prepared to continue to do so indefinitely. By the same token, not only was the wife being maintained by him but she, reciprocally, assisted him in his business, for which he paid her a small gratuity.

Relying upon judgments such as Dodo v Dodo 1990 (2) SA 77 (W) at 89G; Carstens v Carstens 1985 (2) SA 351 (SE) at 353F; SP v HP 2009 (5) SA 223 (O) para10 it was argued, both in the high court and in the appellant’s heads of argument, that it would be against public policy for a woman to be supported by two men at the same time. The court was of the opinion that while there are no doubt members of society who would endorse that view, it rather speaks of values from times past and the court was of the opinion that  in the modern, more liberal (‘enlightened’) age in which we live, public policy demands that a person who cohabits with another should for that reason alone be barred from claiming maintenance from his or her spouse. Each case must be determined by its own facts,and counsel for the husband did not persuade the court to accept that the mere fact that the wife was living with her new partner operated as an automatic bar to her recovering maintenance from the husband.

Under the common law, the reciprocal duty of support existing between spouses, of which the provision of maintenance is an integral part, terminates upon divorce. This might well cause great hardship and inequity particularly where one spouse, during the subsistence of the marriage, has been unable to build up an estate and has reached an age where he or she is unable to realistically earn an adequate income ─ the classical case being that of a woman who has spent what would otherwise have been her active economic years caring for children and running the joint household. This potentially iniquitous situation is alleviated by s 7 of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979. Section 7(1) which provides for a court on granting a decree of divorce to make a written agreement between the parties in regard to the payment of maintenance by one party to another an order of court ─ while in other cases s 7(2) provides:

‘In the absence of an order made in terms of subsection (1) with regard to the payment of maintenance by the one party to the other, the court may, having regard to the existing or prospective means of each of the parties, their respective earning capacities, financial needs and obligations, the age of each of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living of the parties prior to the divorce, their conduct in so far as it may be relevant to the break-down of the marriage, an order in terms of subsection (3) and any other factor which in the opinion of the court should be taken into account, make an order which the court finds just in respect of the payment of maintenance by the one party to the other for any period until the death or remarriage of the party in whose favour the order is given, whichever event may first occur.’

It is trite that the person claiming maintenance must establish a need to be supported. If no such need is established, it would not be ‘just’ as required by this section for a maintenance order to be issued. It is on this issue that the wife’s claim failed. Both she and the husband had moved on with their respective lives and had formed intimate and lasting relationships with others.

The wife was therefore being fully maintained by her new partner in life, and had no need for that maintenance to be supplemented in any way. Accordingly, the respondent’s claimed failed at the first hurdle as she failed to show that she actually required maintenance from the husband.

%d bloggers like this: