02/06/2026
๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐: ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ฐ
Many parents assume that their legal obligation to support a child automatically ends when that child turns eighteen.
However, South African law recognizes that this is not always the case. A child who has reached the age of majority but is unable to support themselves may still be entitled to maintenance from their parents.
Understanding the rights of major dependent children and the obligations of parents is essential, particularly where a child is pursuing tertiary education or is unable to become financially independent due to a disability.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐?
A major dependent child is a child who has attained the age of eighteen but remains financially dependent on their parents. This dependency may arise because the child is pursuing further education, such as university or college studies, or because they suffer from a disability that prevents them from supporting themselves.
In these circumstances, the parental duty of support does not automatically come to an end when the child becomes a major.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง
Historically, South African law placed the responsibility on the major child to institute legal proceedings against a parent for maintenance once they reached adulthood.
This created several practical and emotional challenges. Major children were often placed in the uncomfortable position of having to take legal action against one of their parents, which could damage family relationships and create unnecessary conflict.
In many cases, children avoided bringing maintenance claims altogether, leaving one parent to bear the full financial burden of supporting the child through tertiary education or other periods of dependency.
The legal position was further complicated by differing approaches adopted by various courts.
In the KwaZulu-Natal Division, courts generally refused to include provisions relating to the maintenance of major children in divorce orders, reasoning that the major child was not a party to the divorce proceedings and therefore could not be included in the final order. Other divisions adopted different approaches, resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency across the country.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ค ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง: ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ (๐) ๐๐ ๐๐๐ (๐๐๐)
The uncertainty was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the landmark matter of Z v Z 2022 (5) SA 451 (SCA).
In this case, the appellant sought maintenance for herself as well as for the parties' two major dependent children. The respondent raised a special plea, arguing that the appellant lacked ๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐, the legal right to bring the claim, on behalf of the major children.
According to the respondent, the children were required to institute separate maintenance proceedings in their own names.
The appellant relied on Section 6 of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979, which empowers a court to make any order it considers appropriate regarding the maintenance of dependent children.
In delivering its judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal recognized the practical difficulties faced by dependent adult children and emphasized the importance of shielding children from parental conflict wherever possible.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐๐:
โ๐ท๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐โ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ โ๐๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐ข๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐กโ๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐ก๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ก ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐โ๐ก๐ ๐ก๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐ก.
๐ผ๐ก ๐๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐ก ๐กโ๐๐ฆ ๐ โ๐๐ข๐๐ โ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ก๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ก๐ข๐ก๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐กโ๐๐ ๐ค๐๐กโ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ก ๐กโ๐ ๐๐กโ๐๐; ๐กโ๐๐ฆ ๐ โ๐๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ โ๐๐ ๐ค๐๐กโ ๐๐๐กโ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐๐.โ
The Court ultimately upheld the appeal and confirmed that a parent has the necessary locus standi to pursue a maintenance claim on behalf of a major dependent child during divorce proceedings.
๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ?
A common question arising from the judgment is whether this principle applies only where parents are in the process of divorcing.
The answer is no.
Although the decision was made in the context of divorce proceedings, maintenance courts have largely extended the reasoning of Z v Z to other situations involving major dependent children.
This means that parents may generally bring maintenance applications on behalf of major dependent children where:
โข Divorce proceedings are currently pending;
โข The parties are already divorced; or
โข The parents were never married.
The rationale remains the same. Requiring a major dependent child to litigate directly against a parent often places them in an unfair and emotionally difficult position. It may also discourage legitimate maintenance claims from being pursued, resulting in one parent carrying the entire financial responsibility for the child.
๐๐ซ๐จ๐ญ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ง ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐
๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ญ
A key principle emerging from Z v Z is the recognition that children, whether minors or dependent adults, should, as far as possible, be protected from litigation between their parents.
Forcing a dependent adult child to choose sides or institute legal proceedings against a parent can strain family relationships and create unnecessary hardship. By allowing parents to pursue maintenance claims on behalf of their major dependent children, the courts have adopted a more practical and child-centered approach.
At the same time, the major child retains the right to bring a maintenance claim personally should they choose to do so. They may also pursue maintenance claims against both parents where appropriate.
๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง
The legal position is now considerably clearer than it was in the past. South African courts recognize that a child who has reached adulthood may still require financial support and that parents retain a duty to support such children where they are unable to support themselves.
Importantly, parents are entitled to pursue maintenance claims on behalf of major dependent children, regardless of whether the parties are currently divorcing, already divorced, or were never married.
Simply put, if your child remains financially dependent due to ongoing education, disability, or another legitimate reason, you may have the right to claim or enforce maintenance on their behalf against the other parent.
If you require legal advice regarding maintenance obligations, parental rights, or maintenance court proceedings, the family law team at Brookes Attorneys is available to assist.
๐๐ซ๐จ๐จ๐ค๐๐ฌ ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ง๐๐ฒ๐ฌ
๐ 2 Charles Way, Kloof
๐ 031 035 1055
๐ฉ [email protected]
