MOGOENG CJ been made in that the Children’s Act provides for a wide range of protective measures for children. 12 Standing [13] Returning to the declaration of constitutional invalidity, none of those who were parties before the High Court want, or are able to challenge that decision. Freedom of Religion South Africa,13 which was amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the court of first instance, seeks to assume that responsibility. But there is uncertainty about its standing. [14] The difficulty is whether a friend of the court has standing to bring an application for leave to appeal in circumstances where parties in the lower court are not willing or able to do so. And Freedom of Religion says that it does, under those circumstances, have standing since it is acting in the public interest.14 [15] In Ferreira, O’Regan J stated that the factors relevant to determining whether a person is genuinely acting in the public interest include considerations such as ― “whether there is another reasonable and effective manner in which the challenge can be brought; the nature of the relief sought, and the extent to which it is of general and prospective application; and the range of persons or groups who may be directly or indirectly affected by any order made by the Court and the opportunity that those persons or groups have had to present evidence and argument to the Court.”15 And in Lawyers for Human Rights, Yacoob J stated: 12 See sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. 13 Whose objectives are described in broad terms as engaged in advancing freedom of religion in South Africa, through public awareness, lobbying and research. 14 See section 38(d) of the Constitution. 15 Ferreira v Levin N.O.; Vryenhoek v Powell N.O. [1995] ZACC 13; 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) at para 234. 6