{"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。
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.
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.