注:根据《无遗嘱继承法》,谁是“父母”?将抢走NO v TM

Q3 Social Sciences
M. Wood-Bodley
{"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信