Ivan Zartz’s experience in cases involving Parental Alienation Syndrome has prompted the South African YOU magazine to seek Ivan Zartz’s consultation regarding an article pertaining to the subject. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the unfortunate occurrence whereby children are estranged from one parent through conditions instigated by the other parent. This often involves measures like that of brainwashing or by false accusations leveled at the other parent. When asked about PAS, Zartz remarked that cases of PAS are definitely on the increase in South Africa. Other attorneys in the article stated that PAS seems to be instigated as much as twice in every five divorce and custody cases. There are many ways in which PAS is incited. Some parents go as far as falsely accusing their counterparts of abusing their children, physically and sexually. Sometimes all it takes is for a parent to continually vilify the other parent in front of the children. Warning signs of PAS include odd behavior from children. They may be hostile toward one parent, or they may use vocabulary that they are unlikely to use and can only have heard such terms from the other parent. Parents must also remember to never discuss details of divorce in front of children unless it is a measure of family mediation. The article highlighted a recent case in the United States whereby a mother had managed to alienate her children from the father to such a degree that the children became loath to even sitting and having lunch with their father. The judge made the controversial decision of taking the children out of the situation and placing them in a juvenile detention center whereby they could receive professional help. There are ways and measures of avoiding and dealing with cases of PAS. Make sure that you look for warning signs of PAS or ensure that you do not incite PAS because it is likely that courts will deal more severely with such cases. For any legal assistance or representation . . .
Last year saw a few amendments to the National Credit Act in South Africa. Were you aware? Do you have an idea as to what it means to you, the consumer? You need to make sure that you know where you stand with regards to the Act so that you are not abused by any financial institution or creditor. Blacklist and Smearing Protection When you are unable to pay debts, either because of lack of funds or otherwise, then you can expect to be blacklisted. This term is denoted ‘bad credit’ because of the inability to repay monies owed over an adversely long period of time. However, the new act prevents there from being recorded credit history once a party has paid back all monies due. This is good news for consumers that have been blacklisted in the past, bad news for creditors who have no way of checking credit-worthiness. Clearance Debtors have gone to great lengths in order to obtain credit clearance. In order to get clearance an individual had to have zero outstanding debt, even that of a long-term mortgage. Now clearance can be obtained if your only outstanding debt is that of a mortgage. In this case, threats against the individual concerning “credit history” and clearance no longer apply. Affordability Assessment Regulations The NCA has put in place a set of regulations that disallows creditors from giving credit to those who cannot afford to pay back monies owed over the regulated time. A creditor can choose to extend credit and implement agreements only if they fall within the boundaries set by the Affordability Assessment Regulations. Delivery Of Notice A court notice concerning the debt owed by an individual or organisation must be delivered to the person directly, and notice will require a signature for proof of delivery purposes. This will stop debtors from being taken to court and/or being blacklisted without having prior knowledge of notice. All of the following amendments have been put in place to further protect the debtor from . . .
Although the new Children’s Act provides for estranged mothers and fathers to have equal parental responsibilities and rights in the bringing up of their minor children, mothers are at a distinct advantage when it comes to primary residence of the minor child/children and where they should reside permanently once there is a divorce or separation. Although there have been decided cases in which our judges have stated that the word “mothering” can apply equally to a father, in the majority of cases when parents split up, it is the mother with whom the minor child/children lives and not the father. I have seen many cases where the father is by far the better parent but because on separation the minor child/children has lived with the mother, and has continued to do so for a period of time, the child is left in the mother’s place of residence permanently. This sometimes contradicts conditions whereby the father provides the better environment in which the child can develop. It is difficult for a father to obtain primary residence of a minor child/children. How is it that when a father refuses to return a child to a mother for good reason, such as for example the mother being a serious manic depressive, that the father is considered in breach of the custody agreement? The father has to fight an action for primary residence from behind because initially, the child/children will be returned to the mother yet it seems fathers are at a distinct disadvantage on separation of retaining primary residence and obviously the longer the minor child /children live with the mother, the more difficult are his chances of ever having the minor child/children live with him. Author: Ivan Zartz from Ivan Zartz Attorneys. More Info link: http://ivanzartzattorneys.co.za/mothers-have-a-distinct-advantage-for-childrens-primary-residence/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/IZAttorneys Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/izartzattorneys Images: For high res version/s of One image/s . . .