🔗 Share this article

The Republic of South Africa's highest court has unanimously determined that both mothers and fathers of infants are entitled to equal parenting time - a landmark decision hailed as a major victory for gender equality and family rights.

Present Legislative Difference

According to the current law, female parents are allowed four months of time off, while fathers get merely a brief period.

In its judgment, the Constitutional Court declared sections of the law unconstitutional, labeling it unfair against male parents, and determined that all caregivers may now share the granted leave as they see fit.

"This constitutes a pioneering move for equal treatment, family wellbeing, and the destiny of parenting in the nation," said an advocate, founder of a parental rights group.

Legal Context

Last year, a lower court found certain sections of the work regulations and the benefit regulations unfair and decided that they violated the rights of multiple household types.

The Gauteng High Court then determined that the legislation showed bias toward categories of mothers and fathers distinctly regarding the duration of parental leave and financial support received.

Court Proceedings

The lawsuit was filed by a married couple, the rights body and other petitioners, who aimed to correct the unfair societal burden mainly affecting mothers, stressing that parenting responsibilities should be distributed.

The claimants argued that the current legislation treated unequally against caregivers who were different from the delivering parent - specifically, dads, guardians, and guardians of babies through substitute mothers - by granting them merely a brief period of parenting time, while the delivering parent was granted four months.

Judicial Explanation

Delivering the decision on recently, the presiding justice declared that all caregivers should be eligible for distribute the available days as they saw fit, describing the present regulations archaic and one which "unfairly burdened birth mothers and excluded dads".

"The shielding of biological mothers to the omission of additional caregivers has the detrimental effect of perpetuating the presumption that mothers are, and should be, the principal parents of infants.

"The male parent is sidelined and prevented from the opportunity to engage as a guardian in the nurturing of the infant during the initial period of growth," she continued.

Justice Tshiqi stated the decision was not only about gender equality but also about safeguarding the respect of families, stressing that the primary concern of the judicial ruling was the welfare of infants.

"The unequal treatment not merely sidelines guardians but also denies babies of the possibility to be with their guardians during a crucial period of development and adaptation to their different situation."

Feedback and Consequences

The petitioners applauded the judgment, while legal experts warned that the decision would have significant consequences for companies, who will must change their existing absence rules to follow the ruling.

"The essence of the lawsuit is that it emphasizes the necessity to offer identical caregiver entitlements, acknowledging that caring for a baby is a joint duty," a representative from the rights organization stated to media outlets.

He said the existing legislation "did not acknowledge evolving societal norms around parenting".

Employment attorney a specialist told official outlets that the decision was "a positive and expected outcome" for caregiver entitlements in the state.

Implementation Schedule

The tribunal has suspended its determination of illegality for three years, providing the government opportunity to amend the existing legislation to align with its judgement.

During this period, mothers and fathers will be eligible for decided how they wish to divide the four months and 10 days of leave.

When just one caregiver is employed, that guardian may utilize the full leave allocation.