An Assessment of ProBono.Org’s Maintenance Project at Four Courts in Gauteng: FINDINGS

1. An Assessment of ProBono.Org’s Maintenance Projectat Four Courts in Gauteng:FINDINGS Community Agency for Social Enquiry

2. SELECTED Findings from Staff

3. Where we want to be Our theory of change rests on the fact that we want to increase access to maintenance courts, increase access to justice by providing free legal services and also for the courts to become self-sufficient and run at their optimal level.

4. Activities undertaken Between February and July 2011 497 women were assisted by the maintenance help desk. Interns mainly: • provided legal advice to the women • assisted them with the completion of forms • directed them to the relevant maintenance officials at the courts.

5. Activities 2 Only 6 women got legal representation. • ProBonodoes not assist with criminal cases • Legal representation mainly needed when other party represented • Means test (of Law Society) excludes some. Legal advice far more commonly needed than representation • Some women also approached with other issues where legal representation needed. Some differences in profile of cases: • Alberton & Roodepoort: domestic violence • VdBijlparkand Vereeniging: defaulting

6. Activities 3 Both interns did informal enquiries. This is work that should be done by government officials • But interns gain practical experience • It saves time of government officials • Courts can assist more people, including because women are better informed.

7. Training Both interns said their law studies did not give sufficient preparation for their duties. Training provided by ProBono: • May 2011: training on Maintenance Act at all four courts. • August-September 2011: workshops on mediation as a form of ADR at Alberton and Vanderbijlpark • Workshop on customary law and maintenance at Roodepoort court.

8. Common problems • Assistance with completion of maintenance application forms (including calculating costs) • Applications for increases in amount • Reporting defaulting fathers • Garnishee orders • Difficulties in determining whereabouts of fathers • Evictions from RDP houses in cases of divorce in Vereeniging • Women reporting domestic violence (at Albertonbecause family court?) likely to apply for maintenance simultaneously

9. sELECTED FINDINGS FROM COURT OFFICIALS

10. Staff shortages This problem echoed in all methods: • Includes staff we did not cover directly, such as interpreters and stenographers. • Maintenance investigators are a particular problem: • None at Vereeniging & Vanderbijlpark • Women are expected to do this work themselves • but they don’t have the skills, access to information, money or time • and there are personal dangers.

11. Training • Almost no maintenance-specific training reported apart from ProBono.Org: • Latter not reported by many: Only longer training ‘recognised’? • Justice College training was said to cover only general principles and procedures. • Justice College was not prepared to provide schedule of their training to us. • Clerks and officers are not required to have legal qualifications. • Magistrates report having to train and mentor other officials.

12. Functioning of courts Most officials said that all maintenance courts are applying the same law • But there are differences in how it is organised e.g. queues, dedicated court, days + magistrate preferences. Very few criminal cases. • Officials avoid it as they fear offender will lose job and then not be able to pay. Most women are now paid through bank. • Definite improvement but still problems e.g. • Cash hall officials can’t check queries • Employers submit wrong or late info.

13. Staff-reported challenges Users have limited knowledge: • Differences in perception or responsibilities Inadequate knowledge of clerks & officers Shortage of human resources: • exacerbated by low status of maintenance Shortage of other resources • Printers, computers, internet, cellphones for investigators, GPS, space Lack of cooperation between courts Behaviour and attitude of users

14. Overall assessment Courts are “trying their best” with limited resources available and in situation of high unemployment. New Act had assisted, although it has taken time for users to understand it. Differences between courts: • Roodepoort: No longer receive complaints via presidential helpline • Vanderbijlpark: Functioning so well that users come from other areas • Alberton: Least optimistic (although it is family court)

15. Assessing ProBono Among those that knew about ProBono: • Possibility of free legal representation valued • Problem that interns are not there every day. Comparing interns and clerks: • Interns cannot locate files, check arrears, sign off on consent orders • Clerks cannot arrange free lawyer • Interns may give better advice because of legal training and more time • Interns can assist with form completion and officials are not allowed to do this

16. FINDINGS FROM USERS

17. Common themes Women were asked to tell their stories. Repeated themes: • Most only referred to application forms, not to other documents • Several said that they were expected to deliver the “letter” (subpoena) to the father. • Some were advised to ask police to assist. • Delays of months between delivery of subpoenas and court date. • Alberton: 3 women arrived on court date but name was not on list and told to re-apply

18. The sub-poena In Mankweng police station the police told me that they have their duty of arresting criminals, the court had its own mandate and they must finish their job on their own. They … feared they may be needed to come to Johannesburg for some reason. (ProBono.Org client, Alberton). They gave me two options, it is either I deliver the summons myself to him or post them. I said the alternative is for me to deliver them to make sure that he got them so that it would not prolong the process. (ProBono.Org client, Roodepoort)

19. How is amount determined? Women felt forced to accept less than they felt was needed to support the child: • Generally granted half of what they asked for • Is this misinterpretation by court officials that costs should be split equally regardless of ability of pay? • Seemingly arbitrary decisions by court officials • Repeated instances of court (incorrectly) taking CSG into account.

20. The quantum The person who was assessing us was taking his side because she said what should she do if he did not bring the pay slip. I said to her if you speak like this it means you are encouraging him not to bring the pay slip… (ProBono.Org client, Roodepoort) I completed [the forms] and requested R1000 for the child. [The father] said I must no longer use the Pampers, I must use the cloth nappies. The magistrate said he should pay R300 because I receive a grant for a child, so it ended up there. (ProBono.Org client, Roodepoort)

21. Default The main reasons provided by women for why respondents defaulted were: • The mother was living with another man • The respondent reportedly lost his job. In some cases women doubted the proof provided that men had lost their jobs. In other cases men threatened to resign from work to evade paying maintenance

22. Monitoring of default There should be a follow up that this man is paying every month. And if he didn’t pay they should check the reason why he didn’t pay. So there should be a follow up because they (men) start relaxing if they see or notice that there is nothing done by the court (ProBono.Org client, Vereeniging)

23. Perceptions of officials At all 4 courts, there were women who felt strongly that court officials – including women officials – were favouring men. Several women at Alberton court suspected men were bribing officials, resulting in “lost” files and low amounts. In Alberton & Vereeniging officials were said to be unprofessional, rude and uncaring.

24. Corruption The court officials should stop asking for cold drinks and lunch from us because our partners are giving them the money already. They always tell us that they are hungry and we should buy lunch for them. They follow us when we leave. Sometimes before they help you they ask you to go and buy lunch for them because they are hungry. (ProBono.Org client, Alberton)

25. CONCLUDING thought

26. What is DoJCD doing? Three-year service turnaround in maintenance project: • possible use of Saturday courts to deal with large caseloads • improved skills for frontline maintenance staff • appointment of more investigators • introduction of complaints managers • production of guidelines on maintenance Has anyone heard of or seen this?