Realising the Child’s Right to a Nationality in South Africa interpretation will likely be necessary to bring its application in line with the best interests principle established in the DGLR case, as well as the principle that children need to be considered as independent rights-holders whose fates must be determined separately from those of their parents in order to give them the best chance of a constitutionally consistent existence.97 D The Naki Case Whilst society may express its condemnation of irresponsible liaisons outside the bonds of marriage, visiting this condemnation on an infant, through the application of the law, is illogical and unjust. This Court has warned against punishing children for the sins of their parents; rather, children must be regarded as autonomous rightbearers and not ‘mere extensions’ of their parents. Moreover, imposing undue burdens on the ‘child born out of wedlock’ is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should be imposed on relationships between individuals. Obviously, no child is responsible for her birth and penalising the child is an ineffectual, as well as an unjust way of forcing parents to comply with stereotypical norms of the supremacy of the marital family.98 The Naki case,99 so named for its initial applicant, addresses the right to birth registration, and subsequently citizenship, of children born outside of wedlock to unmarried fathers. When read together, the BDRA and its regulations barred unmarried South African fathers from registering the birth of their child if the child’s mother was deceased, undocumented or absent, leading to childhood statelessness. The case records the experiences of not only the applicant but approximately 30 other children in the same position. The unmarried fathers desperately attempted to register the births of their children under their names but were blocked due to the fact that the BDRA requires the mothers to be legally documented and present to consent to such registration. There was no provision for the registration of a child in the name of the father without the mother’s presence and consent. The Constitutional Court declared the relevant sections of the BDRA unconstitutional and severed them from the Act.100 The result is that a single father may now register his child in his name, regardless of the status or presence of the mother. The case brings the BDRA in line with constitutional and international law standards on the equal treatment of children born in or out of wedlock. An issue that remains to be addressed is the fact that the Department still requires DNA proof of paternity in these cases, blocking those who cannot afford to acquire such proof from accessing birth registration and therefore citizenship.101 97 S v M (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) 2008 (3) SA 232 (CC) [42]. 98 Naki (n 52) [72] (citations omitted). 99 ibid. 100 ibid [71], [88]. 101 Department of Home Affairs, Departmental Circular No 5 of 2014: Requirements Relating to Paternity Tests in Respect of Registration of Births and Referral to National Health Laboratory Services (Departmental Circular, 3 September 2014). 271