A divorced Cape Town father was so set on securing a place in an upmarket school for his child who just turned three and is still in nappies, that he turned to a court for consent to send the child to the school against the mother’s wishes.
He turned to the Western Cape High Court to force the mother to allow him to enrol the child so that when she reached school going age she could attend the school, which he regarded as the best.
The father said the school had been patient by keeping the registration of the child on hold, but he feared that other children may soon fill the spot.
In his urgent application, the father asked the court to either force his ex-wife to sign the necessary enrolment forms within 24 hours, or grant an order allowing him to enrol the child without the mother’s consent.
Acting Judge R K Parker noted that communication between the parties was acrimonious. They were entangled in bitter disputes over a relatively short period of time in the life of the child who was barely three.
The parties were entangled in the latest of several legal battles, and at loggerheads about the preferred school for the child, the intention being that she would start crèche next year.
The applicant contended that he had to drag his ex-wife to court because of her “unreasonable and unconscionable” refusal to co-operate with the co-parenting of the child.
He said after attempts were made to come to a compromise and despite attempts to hold round-table meetings, he had no alternative but to bring the matter to court on an urgent basis.
This is only one in a series of applications, where the man previously asked to have more contact with the child. The issues regarding the tug-o-war over the child is also a subject of an investigation by the office of the family advocate.
The father told the court that applications for decent and reputable schools for the 2025 academic year had already closed.
He said the school of choice - said to be the best - had been accommodating him by continuously extending the registration date. The father also pointed out that it was too late to apply to another school of the same status as the one he wanted his child to attend.
The father argued that the mother’s refusal to give consent, would prejudice and deprive the child of the opportunity to attend one of the best institutions in the country.
He said because of her stubbornness, he was forced to launch the urgent court application.
The mother in opposing the application, argued that the father had created his own urgent situation by waiting until the 11th hour to enrol the child.
The mother was of the view that since the child was not yet three years old, her entrance into a school was not an urgent matter and there was no indication that she would suffer any emotional or developmental damage if she was not yet enrolled at a school.
The mother said it is too early to decide as the child was still small and on nappies.
Judge Parker said the matter should not be before the court, but be resolved through mediation. “Mediation provides for disputes to be resolved in a reconciliatory manner and therefore, promotes restorative justice.”
The judge added that the role of mediation was more suitable to build a relationship in matters such as this, which involved a very young child and where the parties would have to consult and communicate with each other for quite a long time on joint decision-making, until the child reaches the age of majority.
“I am mindful that not all disputes are suitable for mediation and that I cannot force parties to mediate. However, the parties are obligated to consider mediation.”
Judge Parker, in turning down the urgent application, said where issues arose requiring joint decision making, a mediator was better suited in instances where there was volatility between parties and communication was fractious.
Pretoria News