Article Sidebar
Published:
Aug 30, 2022Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
How does South African law handle cases involving baby swapping?
Abstract
Cases of baby swapping in South Africa (SA) are very rare. In 1996 the first of these cases, Clinton-Parker v Administrator, Transvaal; Dawkins v Administrator, Transvaal, appeared before our courts. The parties in that instance decided to keep the babies who had been erroneously given to them, but the plaintiffs were awarded compensation for the emotional shock and injury they endured as the result of the defendant’s negligence. In recent times we had the case of Child Law v NN and NS (GP), where the parties also decided to keep the children who had been erroneously given to them by the hospital staff. These scenarios, while difficult, have had amicable conclusions, with the parents electing not to pursue custody of their natural children. The situation would be more complex if either of the parties were to decide that they want their natural child back. A number of questions are pertinent here, and will guide the discussion in this article. Is it as simple as both of the ‘psychological’ parents returning the babies to their natural parents? Do the parents have a claim against the hospital staff? Unfortunately there is not a wealth of legal precedent to assist the SA courts in this regard. The article explores the jurisprudence that speaks to baby swapping, in an attempt to provide clarity and assistance in resolving these difficult cases.
