A divorced Cape Town father was so determined to secure a spot in an affluent school for his child, who had just turned three and was still in nappies, that he petitioned the court for permission to send the boy to the school against his mother’s desires, Cape {town} Etc reports.
Also read: Fight involving players and parents tarnishes Cape schools derby
He petitioned the Western Cape High Court to compel the mother to allow him to enrol the child so that when he reached school age, he may attend the school that he considered the best.
The father stated that the school had been patient in holding the child’s enrolment on hold, but he was concerned that other children would soon occupy the space.
In his urgent appeal, the father requested that the court either force his ex-wife to sign the requisite enrolment documents within 24 hours or provide an order allowing him to enrol the child without the mother’s permission.
Cape {town} Etc discount: Experience the beauty of Cape Town’s sea life with a 3-hour scuba diving experience for 2 for R2 699 (valued at R4 000). Get it here.
Acting Judge R K Parker observed that the parties’ correspondence was contentious. They became embroiled in bitter arguments over a relatively short period of time in the child’s life, when he was only three years old.
The parties were embroiled in the most recent of multiple court fights, and they were at odds over the child’s preferred school, with the aim that he would begin crèche next year.
The applicant claimed that he had to bring his ex-wife to court because of her ‘unreasonable and unconscionable’ refusal to cooperate with co-parenting the child.
He stated that after attempting to reach a solution and holding round-table talks, he had no choice but to take the case to court on an urgent basis.
This is only one of several applications in which the man has previously requested additional contact with the child. The family advocate’s office is also investigating the circumstances surrounding the tug-of-war over the child.
The father informed the court that applications to excellent and recognised schools for the 2025 academic year had already ended.
He claimed that the school of his choosing, which was regarded as the best, had been accommodating him by repeatedly extending the registration date. The father also stated that it was too late to apply to another school with the same status as the one he wanted his child to attend.
The father claimed that the mother’s unwillingness to grant assent would prejudice and deprive the child of the opportunity to attend one of the country’s premier institutions.
He claimed that, due to her persistence, he was forced to file an urgent court application.
The mother opposed the application, claiming that the father created his own emergency scenario by waiting until the eleventh hour to enrol the child.
Adventure around Cape Town and its surroundings with these incredible deals on cars for under 100k. Find car listings here.
The mother believed that because the child was not yet three years old, enrolment in a school was not an urgent concern, and there was no evidence that he would suffer emotional or developmental harm if he was not enrolled.
The mother stated that it was too early to make a decision because the child was still little and in nappies.
According to Judge Parker, the dispute should be settled through mediation rather than in court.
‘Mediation provides for disputes to be resolved in a reconciliatory manner and therefore, promotes restorative justice.’
The judge added that mediation was better suited to establishing a relationship in cases like this, which involved a very young child and required the parties to consult and communicate with each other for quite some time on joint decision-making until the child reached 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 rejecting the urgent application, stated that when situations occurred needing collaborative decision making, a mediator was better appropriate in cases where there was volatility between parties and communication was strained.
Also read:
Picture: CDC / Unsplash