{"title":"注:根据《无遗嘱继承法》,谁是“父母”?将抢走NO v TM","authors":"M. Wood-Bodley","doi":"10.47348/salj/v139/i4a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Wilsnach NO v TM 2021 (3) SA 568 (GP) the court radically reinterpreted the meaning of the term ‘parent’ for the purposes of intestate succession, thereby excluding an unmarried father from inheriting from his deceased child as a ‘parent’, and permitting the child’s grandmother to inherit as if she were the child’s ‘parent’. The court achieved this outcome by finding that the provisions of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 must inform our understanding of who a ‘parent’ is for the purposes of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987. The note critically evaluates this judgment in the light of the historical development of the rules of intestate succession and the history of the legislation, identifies problematic issues arising from the judgment, and suggests an alternative way in which the father’s perceived unsuitability as an heir may have been achieved.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Notes: Who is a ‘parent’ for the purposes of the Intestate Succession Act? Wilsnach NO v TM\",\"authors\":\"M. Wood-Bodley\",\"doi\":\"10.47348/salj/v139/i4a3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Wilsnach NO v TM 2021 (3) SA 568 (GP) the court radically reinterpreted the meaning of the term ‘parent’ for the purposes of intestate succession, thereby excluding an unmarried father from inheriting from his deceased child as a ‘parent’, and permitting the child’s grandmother to inherit as if she were the child’s ‘parent’. The court achieved this outcome by finding that the provisions of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 must inform our understanding of who a ‘parent’ is for the purposes of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987. The note critically evaluates this judgment in the light of the historical development of the rules of intestate succession and the history of the legislation, identifies problematic issues arising from the judgment, and suggests an alternative way in which the father’s perceived unsuitability as an heir may have been achieved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African law journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i4a3\",\"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":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i4a3","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Wilsnach NO v TM 2021 (3) SA 568 (GP)一案中,法院为了无遗嘱继承的目的,从根本上重新解释了“父母”一词的含义,从而排除了未婚父亲以“父母”的身份继承其已故子女的遗产,并允许孩子的祖母以“父母”的身份继承。法院通过裁定2005年第38号《儿童法》的规定必须告知我们对1987年第81号《无遗嘱继承法》中“父母”是谁的理解,从而实现了这一结果。该说明根据无遗嘱继承规则的历史发展和立法的历史,对这一判决进行了批判性的评价,确定了该判决产生的问题,并提出了一种替代方法,即父亲被认为不适合作为继承人可能已经实现。
Notes: Who is a ‘parent’ for the purposes of the Intestate Succession Act? Wilsnach NO v TM
In Wilsnach NO v TM 2021 (3) SA 568 (GP) the court radically reinterpreted the meaning of the term ‘parent’ for the purposes of intestate succession, thereby excluding an unmarried father from inheriting from his deceased child as a ‘parent’, and permitting the child’s grandmother to inherit as if she were the child’s ‘parent’. The court achieved this outcome by finding that the provisions of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 must inform our understanding of who a ‘parent’ is for the purposes of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987. The note critically evaluates this judgment in the light of the historical development of the rules of intestate succession and the history of the legislation, identifies problematic issues arising from the judgment, and suggests an alternative way in which the father’s perceived unsuitability as an heir may have been achieved.