‘Lying-In Expenses’ is a term which is often overlooked. However, it carries significant weight in South African Family Law, specifically within maintenance court proceedings.
This article aims to examine the legal intricacies of
Lying-In Expenses’, drawing insights from relevant case law, with a special focus on the Kroon case.
the parallels between ‘Lying-In Expenses’ and maintenance pendente lite, as seen in legal cases, and
shedding light on the challenges and considerations that courts face when determining financial responsibilities amongst parties.
‘Lying-In Expenses’ refers to the reasonable costs incurred by a mother during her pregnancy, childbirth, and the immediate post-birth period. These costs encompass various elements such as obstetrician appointments, hospitalisation, prescribed medication, and essential items for the newborn.
While the law does not provide an exhaustive list; meticulous documentation of related expenditures is essential.
Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998 serves as the legal foundation for claiming Lying-In Expenses[1].
According to the Section the maintenance court may make an Order against such person (if such other person is a child), for the payment of such sum of money, together with any interest thereon, to be made to the mother of the child.
In the opinion of the maintenance court, the mother is entitled to recover from such person in respect of expenses incurred by the mother in connection with the birth of the child and of expenditure incurred by the mother in connection with the maintenance of the child from the date of the child’s birth to the date of the enquiry;”[2].
So, it empowers the maintenance court to order a child to pay the mother a sum for expenses connected to the birth and subsequent maintenance of the child.
Mothers can claim Lying-In Expenses for maintenance from the child’s birth until the maintenance inquiry’s conclusion. Section 15(2) of the Maintenance Act defines the duty of support extending to a child’s proper living, upbringing, including food, clothing, accommodation, medical care, and education[3].
The court determines the fair amount, considering circumstances and apportioning expenses between parties based on their respective means.
Alternative forms of payments, including goods or services, are gaining recognition to address protracted claims arising from unemployment. Settlements often occur through Consent and Maintenance Orders, expediting resolutions.
Drawing from the Kroon v Kroon of 1986[4], the court outlined principles influencing maintenance awards. The case emphasised the need for maintenance when a party cannot support themselves and proposed a “clean break” between parties.
Additionally, the court recognised rehabilitative maintenance for a defined period to support a person during training for employment.
Applying these principles to Lying-In Expenses, the court establishes a commitment to ensuring fair and reasonable distribution of responsibilities by considering various expenses, such as medical bills, baby essentials, and postnatal care costs.
The case shares similarities with Lying-In Expenses maintenance as in both instances, there is a focus on financial provisions during a transitional period related to family dynamics. Below we will be exploring the similarities between the two:
Financial Disputes: The case involves a detailed examination of the financial circumstances
of both parties, similarly to how Lying-In Expenses maintenance considers the financial
capacities of parents.
It addresses income disparities, additional earnings, and debates over expenses.
Child-related Expenses: Lying-In Expenses maintenance often includes provisions for child-
related costs.
Similarly, in the Kroon v Kroon case, there are discussions about maintenance for minor children, school fees, and extramural activities, emphasising the court’s role in ensuring the well-being of children during transitional phases.
Interim Relief: Both situations involve seeking interim relief within the legal proceedings.
Lying-In Expenses maintenance aims to address immediate financial needs during and after
pregnancy.
Similarly, the Rule 43 application provides temporary relief, ensuring financial support and childcare arrangements during the divorce process.
While Lying-In Expenses maintenance specifically pertains to costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth, the case illustrates broader family law principles related to interim financial support, childcare, and the delicate balancing act courts undertake in such matters.
Challenges arise due to the absence of specific provision for Lying-In Expenses on the Application for Maintenance Order Form (J101). Maintenance staff should proactively address this claim during form completion, aligning with the constitutional principle that a child’s best interests are of paramount importance.
Understanding ‘Lying-In Expenses’ is vital for legal practitioners and individuals navigating maintenance court proceedings. ‘
The legal definition, coupled with case studies and precedents, illuminates the nuanced application of Lying-In Expenses in the South African legal landscape.
Addressing challenges and considering the broader context of child support enhances the effectiveness of maintenance court proceedings.
As we anticipate future amendments, the commitment to empower women in maintenance courts remains pivotal, ensuring the well-being and rights of children are safeguarded from the very beginning.
[1] Maintenance Act 99 of 1998 sec: 16(1)(a)(ii).
[2]Maintenance Act 99 of 1998 sec: 16 (1)(a)(ii).
[3] Maintenance Act 99 of 1998 sec: 15 (2).
[4] Kroon v Kroon 1986 (4) SA 616 E
Read More:
Rule 43 Application in Divorce: Maintenance, Child Custody, and Financial Support
How to calculate Child Maintenance (Use this Court Formula!)
Can Parents Claim Maintenance for Adult Dependent Children During Divorce?
E.D v H.D (2023/107780) [2024] ZAGPJHC 499 (24 May 2024)
Republic of South Africa, In the High Court of South Africa Limpopo Division, Polokwane
© 2024 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy