Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CLSO) on the drafting of a Committee Bill on the Children’s A/Bill and legal implications of the Constitutional Court judgement

Meeting report

Drafting of a Committee Bill

The Committee was briefed on the steps that were required to develop and draft a Committee Bill -- in this case, the Children’s Amendment Bill -- to deal with the 126 clauses that were not part of the Bill passed by the 6^th Parliament, as well as other issues raised during public hearings requiring further policy development. The Bill contained clauses addressing various issues ranging from amending and inserting definitions; further providing for the rights of unmarried fathers; abandoned and orphaned children; surrogacy; adoption and inter-country adoption; medical testing and much more. It also sought to address a high court order requiring that a comprehensive legislative solution be developed to deal with challenges relating to the foster care system within 15 months of the order.

The Bill had elicited huge public interest, and many submissions were received containing extensive proposed amendments/re-drafting, particularly relating to the rights of unmarried fathers, the deletion of adoption fees, and inter-country adoption services. The submissions also contained proposals that the Bill include and regulate new issues that would require extensive policy development. These included the safe abandonment of children (baby savers); corporal punishment; new proposals in relation to the rights of unmarried fathers (. a traditional perspective); and children’s right to privacy on digital platforms.

The presentation by the Constitutional and Legal Services Office provided details of the Committee's requirements to process the matter further.

(See attached document)

Impact of Constitutional Court's VJV case judgment

A second presentation advised the Committee of the impact of the Constitutional Court's judgment in the VJV case on the Children’s Act.

Two women in a permanent life partnership had used in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to conceive twins, but only the birthing partner had legal rights and responsibilities, excluding the non-birthing partner despite their joint decision to have children. They had argued in the Constitutional Court that the provisions were unfairly discriminatory, violated their dignity, and were not in the best interests of the child. The Court had found that the provisions of section 40 of the Act were unconstitutional for recognising only marriage and assigning parental rights solely to married persons from artificial fertilisation. It found that the provisions treated married and unmarried persons differently, constituting unfair discrimination based on marital status.

The Constitutional Court had confirmed the high court’s ruling that section 40 of the Children’s Act was unconstitutional, ordered a read-in to include permanent life partners, and suspended the invalidity for 24 months to allow Parliament to address the issue. The Court had ordered that, if Parliament did not address the constitutional issues in section 40 within 24 months, the section would be amended to include permanent life partners and define parental rights as outlined.

The 2020 Children’s Amendment Bill proposed changes to section 40 of the Children’s Act to include permanent life partners and clarify parental rights for children born through artificial fertilisation. The proposed 2020 amendments to section 40 were broader than the Constitutional Court's read-in, but the sixth Parliament had passed the Children’s Amendment Act, 2022, without these changes.

The Court had ruled that if section 40 was not corrected by 28 June 2025, it would be amended by the Court order, with no legal gap during the suspension period.

(See attached document for further details)

Adv Luyanda Mtshotshisa, Specialist: Legislative Drafting and Review, Department of Social Development (DSD), said he agreed with the detailed presentations from his parliamentary colleagues. Significant changes had occurred since the Bill was decided to be handled as a Committee bill, especially in areas like inter-country adoption and the rights of unmarried fathers. These changes meant the policy position guiding the new provisions of the amendment needed reconsideration.

He said it might have been fortunate that the Bill was not finalised earlier, because it would have required amendments due to recent developments. While he agreed with the process outlined by his colleagues, he pointed out that the executive had also followed a similar process with additional steps involving another arm of government.

He explained that when the Bill was first presented, it was certified as not affecting traditional leadership. However, it later became clear that the Bill did impact traditional leadership, particularly regarding section 21, which concerned the rights of unmarried fathers. This oversight required further engagement with traditional leadership.

He acknowledged that changes in policy had led to new issues, and it was up to the Committee to decide whether to address these issues as part of a Committee bill. He assured the Committee that if they were not prepared, or lacked the capacity for policy development, the Department was ready to proceed with the Bill as an executive bill. He reiterated that the DSD had a child protection policy, though it might need minor amendments due to legal adoption issues, baby savers, and traditional leadership concerns.

The Chairperson thanked Adv Mtshotshisa for his explanation, which she believed would assist Members in discussing and making decisions about the Bill. She invited Members to ask questions to gain clarity before making informed decisions.

Discussion

Mr T Munyai (ANC) expressed excitement about the judgment, particularly because the Constitutional Court had reaffirmed Parliament's authority to deliberate and consult during the process. He then proposed that the Bill be referred back to the executive to continue the process. He suggested that the executive conduct a socio-economic impact analysis, ensure it was certified by the state law advisor, and confirm that it was consistent with the Constitution. He emphasised that he did not support shortcuts, relating his experience with the abuse of cannabis case, and the instructions from Judge Zondo.

He suggested that when the Committee made a decision, it should be communicated to the court so that the court was aware of the process being followed. He emphasised that the process was not mechanical, and that similar actions had been taken in the past.

He proposed that the Committee defer the process to the executive. After the executive completed its work, the Bill would be brought before the Speaker and then returned to Parliament for further consideration. This would allow the Committee to affirm the Bill's desirability and begin the public participation process, following the rules. He stressed that the best course of action would be to defer the matter to the executive to initiate the process.

Ms A Abrahams (DA) pointed out that the presentations had missed an important detail, which was that the Committee was in its current position due to incorrect legal advice. It had been advised to reject certain clauses instead of separating the Bill into different parts. This mistake meant that they now had to restart the process from the beginning.

She said that starting from scratch had cost implications. Each trip to the nine provinces for public participation had cost Parliament and the taxpayers between R300 000 and more than R500 000 per session, per week. If the Bill had been properly separated from the start, the Committee would not need to redo public participation on those clauses, and could have continued from where they left off.

She expressed her concern about having to revisit the communities they had previously engaged with during public meetings. She described those meetings as brutal, where community members repeatedly spoke about how the systems failed them. She found it traumatic and embarrassing to think about returning to those same people to inform them that the Children's Bill was still not complete, admitting that the Committee had let them down.

The idea of taking the Bill back to the executive was also embarrassing. She recalled how the executive had previously caused many challenges with the Bill, and when Committee Members and stakeholders had pointed out that the Bill was incomplete and needed certain clauses, they had been shut down. She expressed her hope that the Committee would not face the same frustrating obstacles in this term as they had in the last.

She also shared her uncertainty about the best way forward for the Bill. If the Bill were in the hands of the Committee Members, who were on the ground daily in their respective provinces and hearing the concerns of their constituents, it might be better handled. However, she had not yet decided which path would place the Bill in the best hands.

She raised a concern about a point in slide 11, paragraph 1, of the first presentation, particularly step 1 on policy development. The presentation suggested that certain clauses could not be incorporated into a Committee bill as they were. She questioned this, saying that if the original wording was perfect, why could it not simply be copied and pasted into the Committee bill? She argued that if the wording had been acceptable initially, there should be no need to change it, only to later revert to the same language.

She then addressed the concern of baby savers, noting that while some might see the current situation as a "blessing in disguise," the babies still being abandoned and the non-profit organisations (NPOs) facing closure or loss of funding would not share that view. She emphasised that the Children's Amendment Bill would have protected these groups, which remained incomplete. She was concerned that the Committee might take another long period, potentially an entire term, to progress on this issue if it was handed back to the executive.

She questioned the timeline if the executive were to take over, noting that the Committee had been waiting on other important matters like the maternal support policy and the linking of Child Support Grant beneficiaries with government services, which would not be presented to the Cabinet until March 2025, despite being worked on throughout the last term.

She proposed that if the Committee decided to take on the Bill again, they needed to compare their timeline with that of the executive. She suggested that if Parliament lacked policy support, the executive department could assist with this while the Committee continued to work on the Bill. This collaboration would help to get the Bill across the finish line within a reasonable time. She stressed the importance of having a clear timeline when returning to public participation, so the Committee would not be making empty promises to the communities.

She asked about the Early Childhood Development (ECD) clauses, questioning whether these clauses had already been removed from the Bill numbered 126, and if they now fell under the Department of Basic Education (DBE).

Her main concern was the timeline and the need for collaboration between the Department and the Committee. She questioned why the Committee should handle everything on its own, or why the Department should work in isolation. She proposed that a collaborative approach could help get the Bill completed more quickly and effectively.

Mr K Ramaila (ANC) said that there was some confusion, as both presentations seemed to leave the Committee with a choice between options. He agreed with the proposal made by the previous Speaker.

Ms M Makgato (ANC) agreed with the suggestion that the Bill should be sent back to the executive.

Ms P Marais (EFF) agreed with Ms Abrahams' comments. She noted that they had until June 2025 to resolve the Bill, which was essentially eight months, excluding December and January due to holiday periods. She questioned if Department could meet this deadline, given the history of issues with the Bill during COVID and previous extensions from the court. She was concerned about the Department needing to request another extension due to time constraints.

She raised several issues, including the high divorce rate in South Africa and the increasing number of same-sex couples, pointing out that terms like "partner" should be included in the Bill to reflect these realities. She questioned the process for moving forward, particularly if the Committee had to start from scratch, which would involve significant financial costs, drafting the Bill again, and holding public hearings.

She compared the current situation to previous amendments made to the Bill since 2005, and asked if the Committee would continue making amendments annually. She also said that the Chairperson's private member’s Bill on the same issue had not been accepted due to certain concerns, leading to the current Committee bill.

She highlighted the urgency of addressing concerns such as baby savers, noting that children were suffering, and that the Department of Justice was waiting for the implementation of the Children’s Amendment Act to proceed with their own related legislation. She stressed that the matter affected other departments as well, and called for a clear solution from the Committee, warning against rushing the process as had happened before.

She also spoke on the need to identify any loopholes if starting from scratch, and to consider the timeline for completing the Bill. She pointed out the contradiction in laws related to same-sex couples and child-rearing, emphasising the need to address these inconsistencies in the legislation.

She said there was a need to carefully consider the Bill due to its importance. She agreed with Ms Abrahams that going back to public hearings and explaining the issue to parents would be challenging. She noted that some bills took over five years to pass, and questioned how long the executive would take to work out this Bill and how much time the Committee would have. She expressed concern that this Bill impacted not only the Department of Social Development, but also other departments waiting for its implementation.

Ms N Tafeni (EFF) had questions on the Children’s Act, specifically Section 40. She was concerned about addressing one part of the provisions while potentially leaving gaps elsewhere. She also asked about Section 40, subsection 2, as well as the outcomes for the parental responsibility of a single parent, when a gamete donor had no intention of being a parent. She sought clarification on how this would affect single women or parents who could not physically carry a child.

Ms K Tlhong (ANC) said Mr Munyai had already addressed her concerns. She welcomed the two reports and, noting that she had not been part of the 6th Administration, supported the view that the Bill should be deferred to the executive.

Mr Munyai emphasised that in the 7th portfolio Committee, incorrect or incompetent legal advice should not be tolerated. He cited the significant financial implications of past legal errors, including R300 000 for this Bill and nearly R5 billion for the land expropriation bill. He acknowledged the separation of powers between the executive and Parliament, and agreed with the presenter that Parliament must make decisions on the Bill. Despite his bias, he reiterated that the executive should defer the Bill.

The Chairperson noted that many of her questions had already been addressed by other Members. However, she still sought clarification from the legal advisors on how to avoid repeating the trauma of the past term. She expressed concern about potentially avoiding public hearings, which had been problematic before and during the process, and the wasted resources due to incorrect advice. She acknowledged the importance of recognising the separation of powers, and emphasised the need for thorough policy development. She agreed with Ms Abrahams about ensuring that Parliament works within its parameters while achieving effective results, including the necessary policy development.

She expressed her disappointment about the separation of powers, which she usually supported. She inquired about the 24-month timeline, asking if it expired in June 2025. She asked if, without expediting the process, Section 40 would become the law. Members confirmed that this would be the case.

She also emphasised the need to include certification for traditional leaders, as it had been a major concern during public hearings and submissions. She felt reassured by Adv Mtshotshisa’s statement that whether the Bill was handled as a Committee bill or an executive bill, it would still require certification that involved traditional leaders. This was important, because traditional leaders had previously felt sidelined.

She requested the secretary and legal advisers to address the questions raised and provide clarity to help the Committee move forward effectively. She acknowledged the comments received and the need for further clarity to proceed with the meeting.

Legal advisors' responses

Ms Daksha Kassen, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, explained that the comment about clauses not being incorporated referred to those that had received significant public feedback, such as those concerning unmarried fathers and traditional aspects. These clauses could not be included in their original form in the Committee bill because they had prompted substantial criticism and needed further consideration and policy development. In contrast, well-drafted clauses that had not faced criticism or significant public comment could be included in the Committee bill without changes.

Mr Michael Prince, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, explained that section 40 of the Children's Act, particularly subsections 2 and 3, addressed the responsibilities related to single parents using artificial fertilisation. He clarified that under subsection 2, a child born from this process would be considered the child of the woman who gave birth. Subsection 3 specified that if the donor was not the husband or permanent partner of the woman, the donor would not have any legal rights or responsibilities towards the child, other than those of the birthing mother.

Adv Charmaine van der Merwe, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, addressed concerns about previous legal advice. She apologised for the errors, and acknowledged that parliamentary law was complex and could be challenging without daily practice. She said she had previously invited the Chairperson to raise concerns with the Chief Legal Advisor and had briefed her on the issues. To improve future advice, she noted that his office had provided additional training in legislative drafting and encouraged more communication with the drafting team. She also gave an assurance that if the Committee decided to formally address these issues with the chief legal advisor, they would receive attention.

She discussed Joint Rule 201, which requires the executive to inform Parliament about upcoming bills so that Committees could prepare. This rule mandates that the government provide an annual provisional legislative programme and quarterly progress reports. It also requires ministers to communicate with committees about bills planned for the upcoming quarter.

She explained that committees had oversight functions and could ask departments for regular updates on policy development. Committees could request progress reports on a regular basis and could choose to change their approach if needed. For instance, if a committee initially deferred a bill to the Department for development, it could later decide to handle the Bill as a committee bill.

Adv Van der Merwe also said that if a Committee lacked the necessary expertise for policy development, it could engage external experts. She emphasised that today’s decisions were not final and that there were continuous oversight options available. This meant that committees could remain active in the process and make adjustments as needed.

She discussed managing timelines and public participation. She suggested that committees should consult with departments to set clear timelines for bill development. For example, if a bill was expected to be introduced in June 2025, the Committee should ask when the policy development would be completed and how long it would take to update and finalise the Bill. Committees could then hold departments accountable to these timelines.

She also acknowledged the challenges of public participation, but commented that it was unavoidable. To address this, she recommended using oversight powers to communicate regularly with the public about the progress of the Bill. This could include issuing media statements to update the public and manage expectations. She emphasised that regular communication and setting clear timelines could help to manage the process and keep the public informed.

She emphasised that the Committee's decision was not final and rigid. If the Committee decided to pursue a Committee bill with the help of an external expert, but later found it difficult to secure such an expert, it could choose to refer the matter back to the Department. Similarly, if the Committee initially referred the Bill to the Department but later decided that progress was not enough, they could switch back to developing the Bill as a Committee bill. This flexibility allowed the Committee to adapt its approach as needed.

Adv Mtshotshisa addressed the concern over public participation, saying that returning to public hearings did not mean re-consulting on the entire Bill. Instead, it addressed issues raised during public hearings but not included in the gazetted version of the Bill. For example, the question of the baby savers was not part of the original gazetted Bill, so the public's feedback on these topics needed to be considered separately.

Regarding Section 21 and traditional leadership, the aim of amending Section 21 was to ensure equal rights for unmarried fathers compared to married fathers, in line with the Constitution. However, consultations introduced concerns about traditional leadership, which were not part of the original intent of the amendment. This was why the certification from the Chief State Law Advisor confirmed that the Bill did not address issues related to traditional leadership.

He said the Early Childhood Development clauses were not part of the current Bill. The Department of Basic Education (DBE) was handling consultations related to ECD separately.

In summary, returning to public consultation focused on specific issues not covered in the original gazetted Bill, while the Bill's focus remained on equal rights for unmarried fathers and did not affect traditional leadership.

Adv Mtshotshisa addressed the concerns on the legal opinion and the timing issues. He said the legal advice received should be understood in the context of the urgent situation at that time. The Committee had faced a deadline set by the high court on 29 November. The issue was if the Committee could meet this deadline while still addressing all aspects of the Bill, or if they needed to focus solely on foster care issues and address the rest later.

Due to the looming deadline, the Committee had decided to prioritise the foster care clauses. This decision was based on the urgency of meeting the court’s deadline and avoiding the risk of the Minister being in contempt of court. The aim was to prevent a backlog in foster care cases and ensure children received their grants.

Adv Mtshotshisa expressed gratitude for the Committee’s decision to defer other clauses to a later date, and apologised for any challenges caused by the earlier decisions. He acknowledged that focusing on foster care was necessary to avoid further legal complications and extensions. In summary, the Committee's focus on foster care was a response to an urgent legal deadline, and the decision to address other clauses later had been made to ensure compliance with court orders and avoid delays in foster care grants.

The Chairperson asked Adv Mtshotshisa about the estimated timeline for the Bill.

He responded that only three main issues were left to address: inter-country adoption, baby savers, and traditional leadership. The other issues in the 126 clauses had already been resolved according to the Department's child protection policy. He estimated that processing these issues through the necessary clusters would be completed in sufficient time before returning to the Committee. However, he noted potential unforeseen challenges, mentioning that a bill presented in early 2020 had taken four years to complete due to COVID-19 and other factors.

Further discussion

Mr Munyai said he believed a decision had already been made on the Bill's next steps during earlier deliberations. However, he still believed the Bill should be deferred to the executive for initiation. He argued that this would allow Parliament to fulfil its legislative role according to Section 44(1) of the Constitution, which grants Parliament the authority to pass legislation on any matter.

He explained that the court had required regular updates on the process, reinforcing Parliament's responsibility to deliberate and consult on the issues. He emphasised that shortcuts should be avoided, as they had negative consequences. He said that according to the principle of separation of powers, both the executive and Parliament had distinct roles, and that proper consultation with the public was essential. He cited the costly example of the Expropriation of Land without Compensation Bbill, which had significant financial implications due to extensive consultations.

While he had appreciated the apology, he would not tolerate mediocre or incompetent law-making due to cost and time implications. He pointed out that public representatives often faced criticism for delays in passing legislation. He insisted that the recommendation was to return the Bill to the executive for initiation before Parliament could perform oversight. He emphasised that oversight could not occur prematurely before the Bill had been handed over to the executive.

Ms Abrahams asked if the matter of legal services' capacity had been resolved, specifically if there would be a dedicated legal advisor for the duration of bills, or if advisors would continue to change frequently. She also asked if stakeholders from the original Children's Act would be considered as external stakeholders, and who would bear the cost of involving these external stakeholders -- would it be covered by the Committee or Parliament?

Ms Marais made it clear that the Committee was responsible for deciding the next steps and should not be pressured into accepting any single proposal. She criticised previous experiences where the Committee had been bullied, leading to delays with the Bill. She stressed the need for a careful and balanced decision to properly represent their communities.

She addressed issues with the legal advice, noting that the advisors frequently changed and were often unavailable. This situation had previously caused problems, and she expressed concern about repeating those issues if the Bill needed to be completed by June.

She raised a point about the need for regular progress reports on bills. Last week, for the first time, she had learned about many bills that were pending in the executive and not previously communicated to the Committee. She requested that the secretary provide an update on the status of these bills to ensure the Committee was well-informed and not caught off guard.

Ms Tlhong said that while all submissions were respected, the Committee still held the view that the Bill should be deferred, consistent with Mr Munyai’s previous submission.

Adv Van der Merwe addressed concerns about legal capacity. She admitted that ensuring there was always sufficient capacity for legal advisers was difficult. Although the office had increased its capacity, issues arose when advisers had to handle multiple bills or when there were frequent changes in advisers. This led to inconsistencies in advice, as different advisers might provide varying opinions.

She stressed that if Committee Members had concerns about the quality of legal advice, they should raise these issues with the Chief Legal Adviser, noting that if complaints were made after the fact, it would be too late to address them effectively. She urged Members to report any problems promptly to ensure that the office could provide the best possible legal support.

She discussed the possibility of using external experts to assist with policymaking. She explained that the Committee could hire such experts, using the Committee's budget. In the past, experts volunteered their services without payment, especially those from universities who were passionate about the subject matter. This was a way to ensure access to expertise without incurring additional costs.

Ms Makgato suggested that after incorporating all the necessary changes, the Bill should be sent to the executive Committee. She expressed support for this course of action and emphasised the need for the decision to move forward.

The Chairperson thanked everyone for their contributions and acknowledged the importance of the meeting. She appreciated the clear and detailed presentation that helped address concerns about the Children’s Amendment Bill, especially given the challenges faced during the 6th Parliament. She expressed gratitude to Adv Mtshotshisa for outlining the Department's position and for ensuring the Bill could be processed efficiently and effectively, without taking shortcuts, to meet constitutional standards.

She expressed her gratitude to her colleagues for their contributions. She noted that many procedural and other matters had been discussed, which would affect the Committee's work. The Committee secretary would provide additional comments to help clarify and address these matters.

Ms Lindiwe Ntsabo, Committee Secretary, acknowledged the importance of the meeting in deciding the fate of the legacy report from the 6th Parliament. She said that there were differing views. One suggested deferring the Bill to the executive, while the other supported keeping it as a Committee bill. The executive indicated that developing their policies would take them six months. Adv Van der Merwe had indicated that the Committee could use a specific tool to monitor progress on bills initiated by the Department if the Bill was deferred.

For the Committee bill option, she said there were capacity constraints within the Committee, such as a lack of expertise among content advisors for drafting policy. This would necessitate hiring an external expert, and terms of reference would need to be developed for this purpose.

She outlined important considerations for the Committee in deciding the fate of the Bill. She noted that specific supply chain management (SCM) processes needed to be followed, including addressing any budgetary constraints.

If the Committee decided to hire an external expert, terms of reference would need to be developed, and the expert would need to provide a timeline for formulating the policies, considering the extensive research involved. There were also financial implications for hiring the expert.

The Committee had two options -- defer the Bill, or keep it as a Committee bill. For the latter, the process would involve identifying and engaging an external expert, with clear terms of reference and timelines. The expert would then need to present their plan to the Committee to ensure it met its expectations.

She advised that the Committee should be aware of these aspects when making their decision, providing this input as guidance rather than making any decisions herself.

Mr Munyai said that the Portfolio Committee should not delay any further. Given the advice from legal experts and the Committee secretary, the decision should be to defer the Bill to the executive.

The Chairperson responded that the decision to defer should be made collectively by the Committee, not individually.

Ms Abrahams raised concern about the timing. She noted that if the Department needed six months to address the three remaining aspects of the Bill, and considering parliamentary schedules, this timeframe could extend beyond March. She questioned if these three policies would need to appear before the Cabinet, and if their timing would be influenced by Cabinet's schedule. She suggested that the Committee could seek input from external experts about their timelines and adjust their approach based on that information.

Mr Ramaila acknowledged the Committee secretary's advice about the internal processes for hiring an external advisor. He noted that time was limited, so deferring the Bill to the executive was a suitable approach. He agreed with the previous Speaker’s point, and said the matter could be revisited later if needed.

A Member agreed with the Committee secretary's observations about monitoring progress and the challenges of hiring external experts. He said that more research and technical work were needed for the Bill. He supported deferring the Bill to the executive, suggesting that the Committee should extend its consultation efforts to ensure thorough review and consideration.

The Chairperson concluded the discussion by stating that the Committee should now make a decision. She addressed concerns about being pressured or bullied, emphasising that differing opinions were natural and not a form of bullying. She proposed that the Committee suggest that the Department take back the Bill for further processing. Despite her excitement about the Committee being part of passing a bill, she recognised that the current presentation had indicated that additional time was needed for finalising the Bill.

She suggested that, since the Department had indicated it needed only six months to address the remaining issues raised in public hearings, the Committee should let the Bill return to the executive. She recommended that the Committee closely monitor the process and ensure strong oversight. She stressed that the Committee should ensure the Bill meets the needs and expectations gathered from consultations across provinces.

She proposed that the Committee focus on holding the Department accountable and making sure that the Bill aligns with the best interests of children, which should be the Committee’s priority.

The Committee needed to make a decision on the issue. She proposed deferring the Bill back to the executive, which aligned with the decisions suggested by some Committee Members. She emphasised that it was important for the entire Committee to decide on this matter.

Mr Munyai agreed with the proposal to defer the Bill back to the executive.

Ms Makgato seconded the proposal.

The Chairperson confirmed that the Committee had decided to defer the Bill to the Department.

[the Committee had an interaction with a visiting delegation from the Parliament of Namibia but PMG did not cover this session]

The meeting was adjourned.