Johannesburg – After nearly five years of fighting a provident fund over paternity tests, an unemployed mother will now receive more than R300 000 for her minor child.
FundsAtWork Umbrella Provident Fund wanted the mother to prove her then 1-year-old son had a claim on a deceased married man’s provident fund. The child is now 7. He was eligible for R313 876.59, while the man’s wife would get R538 074.16 and his then 16-year old daughter R44 839.51.
The man died in 2014 and had seven children with his wife. The six, who were adults at the time of his death, were disqualified from benefiting because there would not be enough money in the fund to distribute among all beneficiaries.
For four years, the unemployed woman could not afford the R4 000 she had been quoted for a DNA test to prove that the deceased was the father. She could, instead, prove with bank statements that the man gave her a monthly allowance of between R400 and R1 000. The fund said because the man’s name was not on the birth certificate and no one in his family knew about the baby, the only proof would be a DNA test.
The woman went to a police station in 2018 and was given an affidavit to submit to the Newcastle Magistrate’s Court in KwaZulu-Natal for assistance. She was assisted and had to borrow R2 000 for the test, which she was still struggling to pay back.
When she finally managed to do the DNA test and submitted it to the fund, she was informed the money had already been distributed in October 2018 and her son was not eligible for any of it. His portion was given to the wife and daughter.
She then lodged a complaint with Deputy Pension Funds Adjudicator, advocate Matome Thulare, in October last year. She said the fund had not informed her there was a deadline to submit the paternity test, and she needed the money to raise the child.
In their defence, FundsAtWork Umbrella Provident Fund said the law only allowed a year to trace possible dependants and they had given the mother enough time to prove paternity.
Thulare said the fund had not put what was in the best interests of the child first.
“It is clear that the first respondent accepted that (the child) was factually supported by the deceased. It is not clear what purpose a DNA test could have served to prove that (the child) was a dependent … Withholding the payment in respect of (the child), after it had accepted him as a factual dependant, based on the production of DNA test results was an act of irrationality on the part of the fund.
“Instead, the fund caused the complainant to undergo undue emotional and financial hardship in producing a DNA test report which she could not afford.”
He said the fund didn’t give the child the money for a reason that was “irrelevant”. The child will get R313 876.59 and 8.75% a year interest from 2015.
The Star