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
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:unisa/oai:umkn-dsp01.int.unisa.ac.za:10500/17962 |
| Date | 11 1900 |
| Creators | De Jong, Madelene, 1963- |
| Contributors | Van Aswegen, Annél |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | Afrikaans |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 1 online resource (xvii, 381 leaves) |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds