Page:Du Toit v Minister of Welfare.djvu/30

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Skweyiya AJ
 

best interests of children are protected.

[42]Accordingly, I shall grant the relief sought by the applicants in this case and confirm the order made by the High Court. I am of the view that such a remedy serves to protect not only the applicants’ equal parenting rights in respect of the siblings, but all permanent same-sex life partners wanting to adopt children jointly or to undertake joint guardianship.

[43]I should, however, emphasise that in each decision concerning adoption, prospective adoptive parents should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as provided for in the Child Care Act. In so doing, care will be taken to ensure that only suitable couples will be entitled to adopt children jointly.

[44]In conclusion, the following order is made:

1. The order made by Kgomo J in the High Court is confirmed.
2. It is accordingly declared that:
2.1. the omission from section 17(a) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 after the word “jointly” of the words “or by the two members of a permanent same-sex life partnership jointly” is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid; and
2.2. section 17(a) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 is to be read as though the following words appear therein immediately after the word “jointly”: “or by the two members of a permanent same-sex life partnership jointly”; and
30