It is well known that traditionally, biological parents are held responsible for the maintenance of their children. However, with modern mixed families, the responsibility of maintenance becomes more nuanced and complex. A recent ruling highlights this important fact: parental responsibility is not guided by biology alone:
On 11 March 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) struck from its roll an appeal against an order of the Western Cape High Court which was granted under Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
The dispute between the parties, a husband and wife, originated from the institution of divorce proceedings after the breakdown of their marriage. The parties got married out of community of property subject to the accrual system. The wife had two children prior to their marriage, but their stepfather never adopted them, although he did assume a parental role and supported the children financially.
In 2024 the divorce proceedings commenced and the wife approached the High Court and launched an application in terms of Rule 43. Such an application aims to regulate the financial matters during the divorce proceedings and provides a temporary relief and remedy for parties during divorce, so that neither party’s ability to maintain a reasonable standard of living is affected by the divorce proceedings.
The wife argued that she and her children became accustomed to a high standard of living due to the husband’s support. The husband argued that he had no legal obligation to maintain the children and emphasised that he had not adopted them and that their biological father is still present in their lives.
The High Court ordered that the stepfather assumed a parental role and ordered him to make monthly maintenance payments of R40 000, R35 000 for rent, utilities and to retain the children on his medical aid during the divorce proceedings. It must be noted that Rule 43 orders are interim orders and are revisited by a trial court once the divorce proceedings have been concluded.
The stepfather approached the SCA, unhappy with the interim order against him, claiming that he did not have the legal duty to maintain the children. However, the SCA found that the High Court’s ruling did not qualify as an appealable decision and stated that allowing appeals against such interim orders undermines the purpose of such orders. The SCA advised that if a party is unhappy with the Rule 43 rulings against them, they should apply to the High Court for variation or reconsideration and not approach the SCA to launch an appeal application.
Ultimately, the order made by the High Court was upheld and the husband will be liable to make payments until the finalisation of the divorce.
It is important to note that all matters are assessed by the court on its own merits and that every stepparent will not be held responsible for maintenance. However, this matter highlights the complexities of long-term partnerships where children are involved. Stepping into the role of a parent may come with additional responsibilities that one must be cognisant of.
For more information reach out to litigation1@krussatt.co.za and our Team will reach out.