Last week, I walked into the children’s court in Vosloorus believing I was taking a responsible step as a parent. I was told that if I wished to apply for my daughter’s passport without her father being physically present, I would need to approach the high court with legal representation.
I am a single mother who has never been married to the father of my child. My daughter bears my surname. I am her primary caregiver. I make the daily decisions, carry the financial responsibility, and provide the stability every child deserves. Yet under the current passport consent framework administered by the Department of Home Affairs, both parents must generally provide consent or be physically present when applying for a minor’s passport.
When I sought clarification from the department, I was informed that these measures exist to prevent human trafficking, identity fraud and the unlawful removal of children. That objective is legitimate. Child protection must remain paramount. But the question we must ask is this: can a regulation designed to protect children also unintentionally create structural barriers for the very caregivers raising them?
Complex reality
For many unmarried mothers in South Africa, the reality is complex. The father may live in another province, may have started a new family, or may not be actively involved in day-to-day caregiving. Where cooperation breaks down, the apparent remedy is litigation in the high court.
High court litigation is not a simple administrative step. It involves legal drafting, filing fees, time, and often legal representation. For unemployed graduates, working-class mothers, and single-parent households navigating economic strain, this is not a minor inconvenience. It is a significant barrier.
This is not a call to remove fathers from birth certificates. Nor is it an argument to weaken safeguards against trafficking or abduction. South Africa faces real risks in these areas.
However, good governance requires nuance, especially in cases where:
- Parents were never married;
- The child bears the mother’s surname;
- The mother is the verified primary caregiver; and
- The father is not actively involved in daily caregiving,
Is there room for a differentiated administrative process — one that retains safeguards but removes automatic recourse to costly litigation? Such a process could require an affidavit confirming primary caregiving status, proof of the child’s primary residence and reasonable notification measures where appropriate. Oversight would remain intact. Litigation would not be the default.
South Africa’s Constitution recognises that a child’s best interests are paramount in every matter concerning the child. Economic stability forms part of those interests. Access to employment opportunities, including those requiring international travel, can directly affect a child’s long-term security.
Thoughtful reform
Family structures have evolved. Many children are raised in unmarried households. Policy must evolve alongside society.
Protecting children and ensuring administrative fairness are not mutually exclusive goals. With thoughtful reform, both can be achieved.
The issue is not whether safeguards should exist. The issue is whether they are proportionate in all circumstances.
My experience in Vosloorus is not merely personal frustration. It reflects a broader policy tension between regulation and lived reality.
Child protection must remain non-negotiable. But so too must fairness, proportionality and access to opportunity.
At its heart, this is not about paperwork. It is about dignity. It is about a mother trying to plan responsibly for her child’s future without being forced into expensive litigation. It is about ensuring that our administrative systems recognise the families that actually exist in South Africa today. We can protect children from harm without placing unnecessary burdens on the parents who raise them. That balance is possible, and it is worth striving for.
I have drafted a petition calling for a differentiated administrative process — one that maintains safeguards but removes unnecessary litigation in clearly defined circumstances. If this resonates with you as a parent, policymaker, legal professional, or simply as someone who believes systems should work for people, I invite you to read, share, and sign it here. DM
Nozipho Nomhlangano Ntshingila is a communications practitioner with a background in public relations, media engagement and policy communication. She writes in her personal capacity.