Custody disputes have traditionally been considered a legal matter. More recent trends have seen the recognition of divorce and custody as both legal and psychological events. This necessitated the involvement of professionals of the helping services in custody recommendations. Such a multidisciplinary approach is currently taken by the Office of the Family Advocate, Pretoria, in disputed custody matters. It is suggested that the way in which the problem of custody is currently defined, is on a pragmatic level, and does not include a higher-order awareness as implied by an ecosystemic epistemology. Such an awareness denotes self-reflexivity, and calls for a more aesthetic emphasis. The dialectic between aesthetics and pragmatics is maintained by means of a descriptive look at the various systems involved in a disputed custody case. Adopting an ecosystemic epistemology is recommended, through the metaphor of mediation, as a further evolution of an already changing process. / Psychology / M.A. (Clinical Psychology)

Custody disputes have traditionally been considered a legal matter. More recent trends have seen the recognition of divorce and custody as both legal and psychological events. This necessitated the involvement of professionals of the helping services in custody recommendations. Such a multidisciplinary approach is currently taken by the Office of the Family Advocate, Pretoria, in disputed custody matters. It is suggested that the way in which the problem of custody is currently defined, is on a pragmatic level, and does not include a higher-order awareness as implied by an ecosystemic epistemology. Such an awareness denotes self-reflexivity, and calls for a more aesthetic emphasis. The dialectic between aesthetics and pragmatics is maintained by means of a descriptive look at the various systems involved in a disputed custody case. Adopting an ecosystemic epistemology is recommended, through the metaphor of mediation, as a further evolution of an already changing process. / Psychology / M.A. (Clinical Psychology)

In hierdie ondersoek is daar gepoog om die belange van die minderjarige kind in egskeiding te bevorder deur die egskeidingsevalueringsproses waarvolgens die belange van die kind bepaal word, te ondersoek en te beskryf. Die sisteemteoretiese benadering, wat op holisme as uitgangspunt gebaseer is, is gedefinieer en beskryf ten einde die sistemiese perspektief op die gesin-in-egskeiding uit te klaar. Voorts is egskeiding as internasionale fenomeen en die implikasies van egskeidingsdispute vir die minderjarige kind ondersoek en in terme van die juridiese en maatskaplike implikasies asook die beginsel van die “beste belang” van die kind beskryf en verduidelik. Navorser het `n selfontwikkelde praktykmodel vir egskeidingsevaluering ontwikkel en geëvalueer met die doel om die vasstel van die belange van die minderjarige kind in egskeiding te bevorder. Dit is gevolg deur die empiriese resultate, `n algemene opsomming, gevolgtrekkings en aanbevelings. Die volgende navorsingsvraag is geformuleer om die ondersoekende en beskrywende gedeelte van die empiriese navorsing te rig: Wat is die aard en inhoud van die egskeidingsevalueringsproses wat in die praktyk deur die Kantoor van die Gesinsadvokaat toegepas word ten einde die belange van die minderjarige kind te bevorder? Gelei deur die navorsingsvraag is die volgende hipotese geformuleer: Indien die sisteemteoretiese praktykmodel tydens egskeidingsdispute toegepas word, sal die beste belang van die minderjarige kind bevorder word. Vir hierdie ondersoek, waar twee evalueringsprosesse met mekaar vergelyk is, was die kwantitatiewe navorsingsbenadering die aangewese keuse. Intervensienavorsing as tipe navorsing is volgens die Ontwerp- en Ontwikkelingsmodel toegepas. Die kwantitatief-beskrywende opname navorsingsontwerp is benut ten einde die doel van die studie te bereik, naamlik: <ul>Om `n praktykmodel vir egskeidingsevaluering te ontwikkel en empiries te evalueer ten einde die beste belang van die minderjarige kind te bevorder.</li></ul> Voortspruitend uit die doel is die volgende doelwitte geformuleer: <ul> <li>Om vanuit `n sisteemteoretiese perspektief egskeiding as maatskaplike verskynsel, die gesin as maatskaplike sisteem en die belange van die minderjarige kind, teoreties te konseptualiseer.</li> <li>Om die huidige egskeidingsevalueringsproses, soos deur die Kantoor van die Gesinsadvokaat toegepas, te ondersoek en te beskryf.</li> <li>Om `n praktykmodel vir egskeidingsevaluering vanuit `n sisteemteoretiese perspektief, wat die belange van die minderjarige kind bevorder, te ontwikkel.</li> <li>Om die effektiwiteit van die nuut ontwikkelde praktykmodel vir egskeidingsevaluering empiries te evalueer.</li> <li>Om aanbevelings te maak ten opsigte van die praktykbenutting van die nuut ontwikkelde praktykmodel om die belange van die minderjarige kind in egskeidingsevaluering te bevorder.</li></ul> Ten einde die heersende evalueringsproses wat deur die Kantoor van die Gesinsadvokaat in egskeidingsdispute toegepas word met die evalueringsproses soos deur die nuut ontwikkelde praktykmodel toegepas is, te kon vergelyk, het navorser `n vraelys ontwerp vir evaluering van beide prosesse. Die vraelys het uit die volgende drie afdeling bestaan: (1) die professionele profiel van die deskundige (gesinsraadgewer/navorser); (2) profiel van die gesinsisteem in egskeiding wat geëvalueer is; en (3) die aard en inhoud van die evalueringsproses vir egskeidingsdispute. Voltooiing van die vraelys deur die deskundiges wat die twee egskeidingsevalueringsprosesse toegepas het, het meegebring dat die data vergelykbaar was. Daarvolgens kon die twee evalueringsprosesse dus vergelyk word en die effektiwiteit van die nuut ontwikkelde praktykmodel empiries geëvalueer word. Die empiriese resultate ten opsigte van die toepassing van die twee egskeidingsevalueringsprosesse in die praktyk, het `n wesenlike onderskeid in die aard en inhoud van die twee prosesse met betrekking tot die beste belang van die minderjarige kind aangetoon. Dit het geblyk dat in die toepassing van die egskeidingsevalueringsproses deur die Kantoor van die Gesinsadvokaat die assessering van die behoeftes, wense, ontwikkelingsvlak, verhoudings asook sistemiese verbintenisse van die minderjarige kind nie prioriteit geniet nie. Tydsbesteding aan konsultasies met die minderjarige kind is baie beperk en is slegs op `n ad hoc basis uitgevoer. Kollaterale bronne is ook op `n ad hoc basis betrek sodat dit nie moontlik was om die sistemiese verbintenisse van die minderjarige kind te eksploreer nie. Die evalueringsproses soos deur die nuut ontwikkelde praktykmodel toegepas is, bepaal as `n standaard prosedure individuele konsultasies vir assesseringsdoeleindes met die minderjarige kind ten einde die wense, behoeftes, ontwikkelingsvlak, verhoudings en sistemiese verbintenisse te kan bepaal met die oog op die vasstelling van die beste belang van die minderjarige kind vir die post-egskeidingsfase. Voldoende tydsbesteding aan die assessering van die minderjarige kind het hoë prioriteit volgens die praktykmodel geniet. Die evalueringsproses volgens die nuut ontwikkelde praktykmodel het kollaterale bronne as `n standaard prosedure betrek sodat die sistemiese verbintenisse van die minderjarige kind volledig geëksploreer kon word. Dit het dus uit die empiriese resultate geblyk dat die hipotese wat vir die studie gestel was, bevestig is. ENGLISH The aim of this study was to promote the interests of the minor child in a divorce situation, through an investigation into the process of assessment and evaluation whereby the best interests of the minor child in divorce disputes are determined. The systems theory approach, which sees holism as basic principle, was defined and described to explain the systems perspective of the family system in a divorce situation. Divorce as an international phenomenon and the implications of divorce disputes on the minor child were investigated, described and explained according to the legal and social implications as well as the principle of “the best interests” of the child. The researcher presented a self-developed practice model for divorce evaluation with the aim to promote the best interests of the minor child in divorce disputes. The study was concluded with the empirical results, a general summation, conclusions and recommendations. One research question was formulated to guide the investigative and descriptive part of the study, namely: What is the nature and content of the process of evaluation in divorce disputes to determine the best interests of the minor child which is administered by the Office of the Family Advocate? The following hypothesis was formulated according to the research question: If the practice model in divorce evaluation, based on systems theory, is administered in divorce disputes, the best interests of the minor child will be promoted. The quantitative research approach was selected in this investigation where two processes of evaluation were to be compared and the type of research was identified as Intervention Design and Development. The quantitative-descriptive survey design was selected to achieve the following goal of the study, namely: <ul> <li> To develop a practice model for evaluation in divorce and to evaluate the practice model empirical to promote the best interests of the minor child</li></ul> In order to obtain the goal of the study the following objectives were formulated: <ul> <li>To conceptualise theoretically divorce as social phenomenon, the family as social system and the interests of the minor child from a systems perspective.</li> <li>To investigate and describe the current process of evaluation in divorce disputes as it is administered by the Office of the Family Advocate.</li> <li>To develop a practice model for evaluation in divorce disputes from a systems perspective to promote the interests of the minor child.</li> <li>To evaluate empirically the effectiveness of the newly developed practice model for evaluation in divorce disputes.</li> <li>To make recommendations regarding the implementation of the newly developed practice model to promote the interests of the minor child in divorce disputes.</li></ul> A questionnaire was developed by the researcher to enable the comparison of the two processes of evaluation in divorce disputes. The questionnaire had three sections, namely: (1) the professional profile of the expert investigator (family counsellor/researcher); (2) profile of the family system who was evaluated; and (3) the nature and content of the process of evaluation. Data from the questionnaires completed by the expert investigators was compared to enable researcher to evaluate the effectiveness of the newly developed practice model to promote the interests of the minor child. The empirical results from the two evaluation processes confirmed a distinct difference in the nature and content of the two processes. The evaluation process in divorce as done by the Office of the Family Advocate did not put emphasis on the assessment of the needs, wishes, developmental status, relationships or systemic bonds of the minor child in a divorce situation. The time allocated to assessment of the minor child is extremely limited and consultations with the minor child was only done on an ad hoc basis. Consultations with collateral sources were also done on an ad hoc basis. It was thus not possible for family counsellors to explore in-depth the systemic relationships of the minor child in a divorce situation. The evaluation process according to the new practice model recognised the importance of individual consultations with the minor child. Individual assessment of the minor child was done as a regular procedure to establish the needs, wishes, developmental status, relationships as well as the systemic associations of the minor child in a divorce situation. The practice model recognised the need for adequate time allocation for assessment of the minor child. Exploring collateral sources was done as a standard procedure according to the practice model to allow opportunity for assessment of the systemic bonds of the minor child. The empirical results confirmed the hypothesis which was developed for this study. / Thesis (DPhil)--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Social Work and Criminology / unrestricted

Text in Afrikaans with summaries in Afrikaans and English / For many years divorce has been viewed exclusively as a legal problem that had to be addressed by the courts in our adversarial system of litigation. Divorce, however, also entails social problems which are not addressed in our legal system. It appears further that our adversarial legal system tends to heighten the conflicting interests of individual family members at divorce and to encourage animosity and irreconcilability. In an attempt to ameliorate the harsh consequences of the adversarial legal system at divorce, two no-fault grounds for divorce were introduced to enable divorcing spouses to make the decision about the termination of their marriage themselves. This greater freedom that no-fault divorce afforded parties quickly led to a demand for a new system of dispute resolution at divorce. The Hoexter Commission consequently, recommended the establishment of a family court with a social component where mediation services are offered. In both Australia and New Zealand the introduction of no-fault divorce was attended by the establishment of family courts where mediation services are offered. In mediation the parties involved, with the assistance of an impartial third, may sort out and find solutions to all their divorce-related problems. It also appears that mediation has always played a prominent role in the resolution of family disputes in the indigenous communities of South Africa. Owing to financial restrictions, South Africa is still without a family court. So far, only the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 of 1987 has emanated from the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission. This Act, which provides for the institution of enquiries by the office of the family advocate to determine the best interests of children at divorce, professes in its title to have introduced mediation as an alternative system of dispute resolution at divorce. From the contents of the Act it is apparent, however, that it provides for mediation only in a very limited sense. Consequently, it is necessary to amend this Act to make provision for real, comprehensive and accessible mediation services for the public in all family law disputes. This amendment could best be achieved by regulating existing private and community mediation services and integrating them into the formal legal process. / Egskeiding is baie jare lank as 'n regsprobleem beskou wat in ons adversatiewe stelsel van litigasie uitsluitlik deur die howe uitgestryk moes word. Egskeiding behels egter ook maatskaplike probleme wat nie deur ens regstelsel ondervang word nie. Ons adversatiewe regstelsel verskerp boonop die teenstrydige belange van individuele gesinslede by egskeiding en moedig verbittering en onversoenlikheid aan. Weens die probleme wat die skuldbeginsel en die adversatiewe stelsel vir gades met huweliksprobleme en vir die egskeidingsproses in die algemeen veroorsaak het, is twee skuldlose egskeidingsgronde in 1979 ingevoer wat aan gades wat wil skei, groter inspraak en seggenskap in die hele proses gegee het. Hierdie groter vryheid wat skuldlose egskeiding meegebring het, het spoedig 'n behoefte aan 'n nuwe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeiding geskep. Die Hoexterkommissie het gevolglik aanbeveel dat 'n gesinshof met 'n maatskaplike komponent ingestel word waarby onder andere bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar meet wees. In sowel Australie as Nieu-Seeland het die invoering van skuldlose egskeiding inderdaad gepaardgegaan met die instelling van gesinshowe waar bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar is. In die bemiddelingsproses kan mense self, maar met die bystand van 'n onpartydige derde, al hulle probleme by egskeiding uitsorteer en oplos. Dit blyk verder dat bemiddeling nog altyd 'n prominente rol by die beslegting van gesinsgeskille in inheemsregtelike gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika gespeel het. Weens finansiele beperkings is Suid-Afrika nog steeds sonder 'n gesinshof. Al wat tot dusver uit die Hoexterkommissie se aanbevelings voortgevloei het, is die Wet op Bemiddeling in Sekere Egskeidingsaangeleenthede 24 van 1987 wat daarvoor voorsiening maak dat die kantoor van die gesinsadvokaat by egskeiding ondersoeke na die beste belange van kinders kan instel. Alhoewel die titel van die Wet voorgee om vir bemiddeling as 'n alternatiewe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeidng voorsiening te maak, blyk dit uit die inhoud van die Wet dat dit bloot vir 'n baie beperkte vorm van bemiddeling voorsiening maak. Dit is gevolglik nodig dat hierdie Wet gewysig word om by alle familieregtelike kwessies vir ware, omvattende en toeganklike bemiddelingsdienste aan die publiek voorsiening te maak. Die geskikste wyse waarop dit bewerkstellig kan word, is om bestaande private en gemeenskapsbemiddelingsdienste te reguleer en in die formele regsproses te integreer. / Private Law / LL.D.

Text in Afrikaans, abstract in Afrikaans and English / Egskeiding is baie jare lank as 'n regsprobleem beskou wat in ons adversatiewe stelsel van litigasie uitsluitlik deur die howe uitgestryk moes word. Egskeiding behels egter ook maatskaplike probleme wat nie deur ons regstelsel ondervang word nie. Ons adversatiewe regstelsel verskerp boonop die teenstrydige belange van individuele gesinslede by egskeiding en moedig verbittering en onversoenlikheid aan. Weens die probleme wat die skuldbeginsel en die adversatiewe stelsel vir gades met huweliksprobleme en vir die egskeidingsproses in die algemeen veroorsaak het, is twee skuldlose egskeidingsgronde in 1979 ingevoer wat aan gades wat wil skei, groter inspraak en seggenskap in die hele proses gegee het. Hierdie groter vryheid wat skuldlose egskeiding meegebring het, het spoedig 'n behoefte aan 'n nuwe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeiding geskep. Die Hoexterkommissie het gevolglik aanbeveel dat 'n gesinshof met 'n maatskaplike komponent ingestel word waarby onder andere bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar moet wees. In sowel Australie as Nieu-Seeland het die invoering van skuldlose egskeiding inderdaad gepaardgegaan met die instelling van gesinshowe waar bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar is. In die bemiddelingsproses kan mense self, maar met die bystand van 'n onpartydige derde, al hulle probleme by egskeiding uitsorteer en oplos. Dit blyk verder dat bemiddeling nog altyd 'n prominente rol by die beslegting van gesinsgeskille in inheems regtelike gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika gespeel het. Weens finansiele beperkings is Suid-Afrika nog steeds sonder 'n gesinshof. Al wat tot dusver uit die Hoexterkommissie se aanbevelings voortgevloei het, is die Wet op Bemiddeling in Sekere Egskeidingsaangeleenthede 24 van 1987 wat daarvoor voorsiening maak dat die kantoor van die gesinsadvokaat by egskeiding ondersoeke na die beste belange van kinders kan instel. Alhoewel die titel van die Wet voorgee om vir bemiddeling as 'n alternatiewe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeidng voorsiening te maak, blyk dit uit die inhoud van die Wet dat dit bloot vir 'n baie beperkte vorm van bemiddeling voorsiening maak. Dit is gevolglik nodig dat hierdie Wet gewysig word om by alle familieregtelike kwessies vir ware, omvattende en toeganklike bemiddelingsdienste aan die publiek voorsiening te maak. Die geskikste wyse waarop dit bewerkstellig kan word, is om bestaande private en gemeenskapsbemiddelingsdienste te reguleer en in die formate regsproses te integreer. / For many years divorce has been viewed exclusively as a legal problem that had to be addressed by the courts in our adversarial system of litigation. Divorce, however, also entails social problems which are not addressed in our legal system. It appears further that our adversarial legal system tends to heighten the conflicting interests of individual family members at divorce and to encourage animosity and irreconcilability. In an attempt to ameliorate the harsh consequences of the adversarial legal system at divorce, two no-fault grounds for divorce were introduced to enable divorcing spouses to make the decision about the termination of their marriage themselves. This greater freedom that no-fault divorce afforded parties quickly led to a demand for a new system of dispute resolution at divorce. The Hoexter Commission consequently, recommended the establishment of a family court with a social component where mediation services are offered. In both Australia and New Zealand the introduction of no-fault divorce was attended by the establishment of family courts where mediation services are offered. In mediation the parties involved, with the assistance of an impartial third, may sort out and find solutions to all their divorce-related problems. It also appears that mediation has always played a prominent role in the resolution of family disputes in the indigenous communities of South Africa. Owing to financial restrictions, South Africa is still without a family court. So far, only the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 van 1987 has emanated from the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission. This Act, which provides for the institution of enquiries by the office of the family advocate to determine the best interests of children at divorce, professes in its title to have introduced mediation as an alternative system of dispute resolution at divorce. From the contents of the Act it is apparent, however, that it provides for mediation only in a very limited sense. Consequently, it is necessary to amend this Act to make provision for real, comprehensive and accessible mediation services for the public in all family law disputes. This amendment could best be achieved by regulating existing private and community mediation services and integrating them into the formal legal process. / LL. D. (Private Law) / Private Law

Text in Afrikaans with summaries in Afrikaans and English / For many years divorce has been viewed exclusively as a legal problem that had to be addressed by the courts in our adversarial system of litigation. Divorce, however, also entails social problems which are not addressed in our legal system. It appears further that our adversarial legal system tends to heighten the conflicting interests of individual family members at divorce and to encourage animosity and irreconcilability. In an attempt to ameliorate the harsh consequences of the adversarial legal system at divorce, two no-fault grounds for divorce were introduced to enable divorcing spouses to make the decision about the termination of their marriage themselves. This greater freedom that no-fault divorce afforded parties quickly led to a demand for a new system of dispute resolution at divorce. The Hoexter Commission consequently, recommended the establishment of a family court with a social component where mediation services are offered. In both Australia and New Zealand the introduction of no-fault divorce was attended by the establishment of family courts where mediation services are offered. In mediation the parties involved, with the assistance of an impartial third, may sort out and find solutions to all their divorce-related problems. It also appears that mediation has always played a prominent role in the resolution of family disputes in the indigenous communities of South Africa. Owing to financial restrictions, South Africa is still without a family court. So far, only the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 of 1987 has emanated from the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission. This Act, which provides for the institution of enquiries by the office of the family advocate to determine the best interests of children at divorce, professes in its title to have introduced mediation as an alternative system of dispute resolution at divorce. From the contents of the Act it is apparent, however, that it provides for mediation only in a very limited sense. Consequently, it is necessary to amend this Act to make provision for real, comprehensive and accessible mediation services for the public in all family law disputes. This amendment could best be achieved by regulating existing private and community mediation services and integrating them into the formal legal process. / Egskeiding is baie jare lank as 'n regsprobleem beskou wat in ons adversatiewe stelsel van litigasie uitsluitlik deur die howe uitgestryk moes word. Egskeiding behels egter ook maatskaplike probleme wat nie deur ens regstelsel ondervang word nie. Ons adversatiewe regstelsel verskerp boonop die teenstrydige belange van individuele gesinslede by egskeiding en moedig verbittering en onversoenlikheid aan. Weens die probleme wat die skuldbeginsel en die adversatiewe stelsel vir gades met huweliksprobleme en vir die egskeidingsproses in die algemeen veroorsaak het, is twee skuldlose egskeidingsgronde in 1979 ingevoer wat aan gades wat wil skei, groter inspraak en seggenskap in die hele proses gegee het. Hierdie groter vryheid wat skuldlose egskeiding meegebring het, het spoedig 'n behoefte aan 'n nuwe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeiding geskep. Die Hoexterkommissie het gevolglik aanbeveel dat 'n gesinshof met 'n maatskaplike komponent ingestel word waarby onder andere bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar meet wees. In sowel Australie as Nieu-Seeland het die invoering van skuldlose egskeiding inderdaad gepaardgegaan met die instelling van gesinshowe waar bemiddelingsdienste beskikbaar is. In die bemiddelingsproses kan mense self, maar met die bystand van 'n onpartydige derde, al hulle probleme by egskeiding uitsorteer en oplos. Dit blyk verder dat bemiddeling nog altyd 'n prominente rol by die beslegting van gesinsgeskille in inheemsregtelike gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika gespeel het. Weens finansiele beperkings is Suid-Afrika nog steeds sonder 'n gesinshof. Al wat tot dusver uit die Hoexterkommissie se aanbevelings voortgevloei het, is die Wet op Bemiddeling in Sekere Egskeidingsaangeleenthede 24 van 1987 wat daarvoor voorsiening maak dat die kantoor van die gesinsadvokaat by egskeiding ondersoeke na die beste belange van kinders kan instel. Alhoewel die titel van die Wet voorgee om vir bemiddeling as 'n alternatiewe stelsel van dispuutbeslegting by egskeidng voorsiening te maak, blyk dit uit die inhoud van die Wet dat dit bloot vir 'n baie beperkte vorm van bemiddeling voorsiening maak. Dit is gevolglik nodig dat hierdie Wet gewysig word om by alle familieregtelike kwessies vir ware, omvattende en toeganklike bemiddelingsdienste aan die publiek voorsiening te maak. Die geskikste wyse waarop dit bewerkstellig kan word, is om bestaande private en gemeenskapsbemiddelingsdienste te reguleer en in die formele regsproses te integreer. / Private Law / LL.D.