DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 17 Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 37/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 433/16 “It has traditionally been stressed that the law is not that the welfare of the child is the sole consideration. There may, for instance, be cases where the public interest overrides the welfare of a particular child. But the requirement to treat the child’s welfare as the “first and paramount” consideration means “more than that [it] is to be treated as the top item in a list of items relevant to the matter in question. [The words] connote a process whereby, when all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the course to be followed will be that which is most in the interests of the child’s welfare as that term has now to be understood. That is the first consideration because it is of first importance and the paramount consideration because it rules upon or determines the course to be followed.” [36] In the UNHCR Guidelines on Determining The Best Interests of the Child, May 2008, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees states:“The term “best interests” broadly describes the well-being of a child. Such well-being is determined by a variety of individual circumstances, such as the age, the level of maturity of the child, the presence or absence of parents, the child’s environment and experiences. … neither offers a precise definition, nor explicitly outlines common factors of the best interests of the child, but stipulates that … the best interests must be a primary (but not the sole) consideration for all other actions affecting children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies (Article 3).” [37] In S v M (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) 2008 (3) S.A. 232 (cc), the South African Constitutional Court quoted with approval the remarks by Julia Sloth –Nielsen in the article “Chickensoup or Chainsaws: Some implications of the Constitutionalisation of Children’s Rights in South Africa” 1996 Acta Juridica 6 that :“The inclusion of a general standard (‘the best interest of a child’) for the protection of children’s rights in the constitution can become a benchmark review of all proceedings in which decisions are taken regarding children. Courts and administrative authorities will be constitutionally bound to give consideration to the effect their decisions will have on children’s lives.” (at page 26)