由现有子女发出的“家长牌照”?对JCR 2022 5 SA 202 (GP)一审判决的批判性分析

Willene Holness, Brigitte Clark, Aliki Edgcumbe, Freddy Mnyongani, Sheetal Soni, Bonginkosi Shozi, Donrich Thaldar
{"title":"由现有子女发出的“家长牌照”?对JCR 2022 5 SA 202 (GP)一审判决的批判性分析","authors":"Willene Holness, Brigitte Clark, Aliki Edgcumbe, Freddy Mnyongani, Sheetal Soni, Bonginkosi Shozi, Donrich Thaldar","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Ex parte JCR 2022 5 SA 202 (GP) the Pretoria High Court per Neukircher J seeks to introduce new requirements for all surrogacy agreements in South African law. The court considered the psychological impact of surrogacy on the children of both the surrogate parents and the commissioning parents and the need to put in place procedures ‘for preparing them for this process [of not bringing the surrogate baby home]’ or ‘for a new addition to their family’, respectively. The court ordered the mandatory psychological assessment of the existing children of the surrogate parents and commissioning parents. A report emanating from such an assessment would ostensibly assist the court in determining the best interests of the existing children of the parties to the agreement. We argue that the psychological evaluation of the existing children of the parties to a surrogate motherhood agreement fundamentally upsets the balance between the interests of the parties involved in the surrogacy process. In fact, it shifts the balance of power almost entirely into the hands of the existing children, such that they may be said to decide whether their parents allowed to have any more children. We argue that the court’s interpretation that such assessments would be in the best interests of existing children, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the court’s duty in this regard. The new assessment requirement is more likely to undermine these children’s interests, to violate the commissioning parents’ constitutional rights to dignity and equality, and their rights to reproductive autonomy, privacy, and access to reproductive healthcare.","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A \\\"Parenting Licence\\\" Granted by One’s Existing Children? Critical Analysis of the Judgment in Ex Parte JCR 2022 5 SA 202 (GP)\",\"authors\":\"Willene Holness, Brigitte Clark, Aliki Edgcumbe, Freddy Mnyongani, Sheetal Soni, Bonginkosi Shozi, Donrich Thaldar\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Ex parte JCR 2022 5 SA 202 (GP) the Pretoria High Court per Neukircher J seeks to introduce new requirements for all surrogacy agreements in South African law. The court considered the psychological impact of surrogacy on the children of both the surrogate parents and the commissioning parents and the need to put in place procedures ‘for preparing them for this process [of not bringing the surrogate baby home]’ or ‘for a new addition to their family’, respectively. The court ordered the mandatory psychological assessment of the existing children of the surrogate parents and commissioning parents. A report emanating from such an assessment would ostensibly assist the court in determining the best interests of the existing children of the parties to the agreement. We argue that the psychological evaluation of the existing children of the parties to a surrogate motherhood agreement fundamentally upsets the balance between the interests of the parties involved in the surrogacy process. In fact, it shifts the balance of power almost entirely into the hands of the existing children, such that they may be said to decide whether their parents allowed to have any more children. We argue that the court’s interpretation that such assessments would be in the best interests of existing children, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the court’s duty in this regard. The new assessment requirement is more likely to undermine these children’s interests, to violate the commissioning parents’ constitutional rights to dignity and equality, and their rights to reproductive autonomy, privacy, and access to reproductive healthcare.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14694\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在JCR 2022 5 SA 202 (GP)一案中,比勒陀利亚高等法院(Pretoria High Court per Neukircher J)试图在南非法律中引入所有代孕协议的新要求。法院考虑了代孕对代孕父母和委托父母的孩子的心理影响,以及制定程序的必要性,分别是“让他们为(不带代孕婴儿回家的)过程做好准备”或“让他们的家庭有了新成员”。法院下令对代孕父母和委托父母的现有子女进行强制性心理评估。这种评估产生的报告表面上将有助于法院确定协议各方现有子女的最大利益。我们认为,对代孕母亲协议各方现有子女的心理评估从根本上破坏了代孕过程中各方利益之间的平衡。事实上,它将权力的平衡几乎完全转移到了现有子女的手中,以至于他们可以说是决定父母是否允许再生孩子的人。我们认为,法院关于这种评估将符合现有儿童的最大利益的解释是基于对法院在这方面的义务的根本误解。新的评估要求更有可能损害这些儿童的利益,侵犯委托父母享有尊严和平等的宪法权利,以及他们享有生殖自主权、隐私权和获得生殖保健的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A "Parenting Licence" Granted by One’s Existing Children? Critical Analysis of the Judgment in Ex Parte JCR 2022 5 SA 202 (GP)
In Ex parte JCR 2022 5 SA 202 (GP) the Pretoria High Court per Neukircher J seeks to introduce new requirements for all surrogacy agreements in South African law. The court considered the psychological impact of surrogacy on the children of both the surrogate parents and the commissioning parents and the need to put in place procedures ‘for preparing them for this process [of not bringing the surrogate baby home]’ or ‘for a new addition to their family’, respectively. The court ordered the mandatory psychological assessment of the existing children of the surrogate parents and commissioning parents. A report emanating from such an assessment would ostensibly assist the court in determining the best interests of the existing children of the parties to the agreement. We argue that the psychological evaluation of the existing children of the parties to a surrogate motherhood agreement fundamentally upsets the balance between the interests of the parties involved in the surrogacy process. In fact, it shifts the balance of power almost entirely into the hands of the existing children, such that they may be said to decide whether their parents allowed to have any more children. We argue that the court’s interpretation that such assessments would be in the best interests of existing children, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the court’s duty in this regard. The new assessment requirement is more likely to undermine these children’s interests, to violate the commissioning parents’ constitutional rights to dignity and equality, and their rights to reproductive autonomy, privacy, and access to reproductive healthcare.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies in Online Dispute Resolution: A Solution to Consumer Disputes in South Africa? Safeguarding the Rights of Children Living in Kinship Care in South Africa "Cause of Action": How Could the Supreme Court of Appeal Get it so Wrong? Olesitse v Minister of Police (SCA) (Unreported) Case No: 470/2021 of 15 June 2022 Navigating Reputational Risks: Cautionary Considerations for South African Banks in the Unilateral Termination of Bank-Customer Relationships An Overview of the Extent of the Powers of South African Competition Authorities in the Regulation of Price Discrimination under the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in the Context of Digital Transformation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1