🔗 Share this article

The Republic of South Africa's constitutional court has collectively ruled that all parents of new-borns are entitled to the same parenting time - a historic decision hailed as a significant win for equal rights and household entitlements.

Current Legislative Disparity

According to the existing legislation, female parents are allowed 120 days of time off, while dads receive just 10 days.

Through its ruling, the Constitutional Court declared parts of the regulation unconstitutional, calling it biased against fathers, and ruled that mothers and fathers may now share the granted leave as they see fit.

"This constitutes a ground-breaking move for fairness, household welfare, and the destiny of fatherhood in the country," commented an advocate, founder of a fathers' organization.

Legal History

In 2023, a trial court found specific provisions of the employment legislation and the insurance law unfair and decided that they infringed upon the privileges of various household types.

The regional tribunal then determined that the law showed bias toward types of caregivers distinctly regarding the period of parenting time and unemployment benefits received.

Judicial Case

The lawsuit was brought to court by a married couple, the Commission for Gender Equality and additional parties, who wanted to remedy the unfair societal burden placed primarily on mothers, stressing that parenting responsibilities should be divided.

The petitioners argued that the current legislation treated unequally against caregivers who were different from the delivering parent - particularly, male parents, adoptive parents, and parents of infants delivered by gestational carriers - by granting them merely a brief period of parental leave, while the delivering parent got four months.

Judicial Reasoning

Revealing the decision on recently, Judge Tshiqi stated that both parents should be granted distribute the provided period as they saw fit, describing the present regulations obsolete and one which "unfairly burdened mothers and left out dads".

"The protection of delivering parents to the elimination of other parents has the detrimental effect of perpetuating the belief that women are, and should be, the principal parents of infants.

"The male parent is excluded and prevented from the possibility to engage as a caregiver in the upbringing of the infant during the initial period of life," she continued.

Judge Tshiqi commented the decision was not just about equal rights but also about protecting the dignity of families, stressing that the main consideration of the court's decision was the wellbeing of babies.

"The biased handling not just excludes parents but also deprives babies of the chance to be with their parents during a crucial period of care and adaptation to their changed circumstances."

Reactions and Implications

The applicants welcomed the judgment, while jurists warned that the ruling would have far-reaching implications for employers, who will need to adjust their existing absence rules to follow the ruling.

"The essence of the lawsuit is that it highlights the need to grant equal parenting allowances, acknowledging that caring for a baby is a joint duty," Tsietsi Shuping from the equality body informed the press.

He said the existing legislation "did not reflect developing community standards around parenting".

Labour lawyer Patrick Deale stated to official outlets that the decision was "a favorable and anticipated result" for family privileges in the country.

Application Timeline

The court has delayed its declaration of invalidity for three years, allowing the legislature opportunity to change the existing legislation to comply with its judgement.

Meanwhile, mothers and fathers will be granted decided how they wish to divide the specified period of time off.

When just one caregiver is employed, that caregiver may take the complete time off allowance.