🔗 Share this article

The Republic of South Africa's constitutional court has without dissent ruled that all parents of newborn children are granted identical parental leave - a landmark judgment celebrated as a major victory for fair treatment and family rights.

Current Legal Difference

Based on the existing legislation, female parents are granted 120 days of leave, while dads receive only two weeks.

Through its decision, the Constitutional Court declared portions of the legislation illegal, describing it as biased against male parents, and decided that both parents may now share the provided absence however they choose.

"This constitutes a pioneering advancement for equal treatment, household welfare, and the future of fatherhood in the nation," said Sthembiso Phakathi, founder of Single Dads Network.

Judicial Context

Previously, a lower court found particular parts of the employment legislation and the insurance law unjust and ruled that they infringed upon the rights of different household types.

The provincial court then determined that the law discriminated against categories of caregivers unequally regarding the length of parental leave and insurance payments received.

Court Proceedings

The legal action was brought to court by a husband and wife, the rights body and others, who wanted to remedy the disproportionate load placed primarily on female parents, stressing that childcare duties should be divided.

The petitioners contended that the present regulations showed bias against parents who were other than the biological mother - specifically, male parents, adoptive parents, and guardians of infants delivered by gestational carriers - by providing them just two weeks of parenting time, while the birth mother was granted 120 days.

Court Rationale

Announcing the decision on Friday, Justice Zukisa Tshiqi stated that mothers and fathers should be granted share the available days as they deemed appropriate, labeling the existing legislation outdated and one which "unfairly burdened mothers and marginalized male parents".

"The safeguarding of delivering parents to the exclusion of additional caregivers has the unfortunate consequence of perpetuating the belief that women are, and should be, the principal parents of children.

"The father is marginalised and deprived of the opportunity to involve himself as a parent in the rearing of the baby during the formative months of life," she stated further.

Justice Tshiqi said the decision was not only about equal rights but also about protecting the honor of families, stressing that the main consideration of the judicial ruling was the health of babies.

"The biased handling not only excludes guardians but also denies babies of the possibility to be with their caregivers during a crucial period of nurturing and acclimatization to their new environment."

Reactions and Implications

The petitioners applauded the ruling, while jurists warned that the ruling would have far-reaching implications for businesses, who will have to modify their existing absence rules to follow the ruling.

"The core of the legal action is that it emphasizes the requirement to provide equal parenting allowances, understanding that caring for a baby is a joint duty," Tsietsi Shuping from the rights organization informed media outlets.

He said the present regulations "failed to represent evolving societal norms around child-rearing".

Employment attorney an expert told official outlets that the decision was "a welcome and predicted conclusion" for family privileges in the nation.

Implementation Timeframe

The tribunal has delayed its ruling of unconstitutionality for a specified period, providing the government opportunity to amend the current laws to conform to its ruling.

During this period, parents will be granted determine how they choose to distribute the four months and 10 days of absence.

In cases where a single guardian is working, that parent may use the complete time off allowance.