Du Toit and De Vos v. Minister for Welfare and Population Development
South Africa Constitutional Court
2002 WL 31676201 (Const Ct (SA) 2002) Case CCT 40/01 (10 September 2002)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Suzanne Du Toit and Anna-Marie De Vos (plaintiffs) were long-term same-sex partners. Same-sex marriage was not legally recognized in South Africa. Du Toit and De Vos were screened and accepted as adoptive parents with the understanding that they would raise children jointly. In 1994, two young siblings were placed with Du Toit and De Vos. The siblings consider Du Toit and De Vos to be their parents. In 1995, Du Toit and De Vos filed a joint adoption application with the Pretoria Children’s Court. Because Section 17 of South Africa’s Child Care Act (CCA) stated that only a husband and wife could jointly adopt children, Du Toit and De Vos’s joint adoption application was denied. Ultimately, even though Du Toit was the children’s primary caregiver, the court granted De Vos a single parent adoption. Du Toit and De Vos appealed to the Pretoria High Court, arguing that the CCA’s prohibition against joint adoptions by same-sex partners was discriminatory, offensive to human dignity, and contrary to the best interests of children. The High Court declared that Section 17 of the CCA was unconstitutional and ordered that it should be modified to allow same-sex partners to jointly adopt children. Because the High Court was not empowered to issue binding rulings declaring statutory law unconstitutional, Du Toit and De Vos sought confirmation from the South African Constitutional Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Skweyiya, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.