Pretoria - Simply because the mother has had a child with the father does not mean that her entitlement to a life of her own must be discounted and ignored, while he can continue as he chooses and directs, a judge said.
This was in allowing the mother of a 2-year-old to relocate to another province with her daughter.
The mother turned to the high court sitting in Pietermaritzburg, as the father of the child refused her permission to relocate the child. The parties were never married and the child was born from their romantic relationship.
They broke up when the child was 14 months old and had a parenting plan in place, which, among others, stated that neither party shall be allowed to relocate outside the borders of KwaZulu-Natal and/or South Africa, without the other party’s written consent.
This would not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, the plan continued.
The father steadfast refused to give consent and said the mother was welcome to relocate to Cape Town if she so wanted, but she had to leave the child behind. This was one of many submissions by the father which had the judge raising his eyebrows.
The judge questioned how a father, who loved his child, could ever suggest that such a child should remain behind without her mother.
Judge David Mossop, in a judgment delivered this week, also questioned whether the father expected the mother to remain put until the child was no longer a minor – simply because it suited his (the father’s) needs.
The mother told the court that she wanted to relocate to Cape Town in pursuit of more lucrative employment within the same company that currently employed her. She said with the salary she earned in her current position she did not make ends meet and her parents had to assist her financially each month.
However, with her new position in Cape Town, she would have a few thousand rand a month extra, especially as she will be living with her parents there.
In terms of the non-relocation clause in the parenting plan, the consent of the father is required for her proposed relocation, which he is refusing. According to the father, a few thousand a month extra is not a significant financial advantage to warrant relocation and he proposed that she resign and find another job so that he could continue seeing his child.
Judge Mossop said: “While the parenting plan was to be a roadmap for the future rearing of the minor child by the parties, and while it was intended to provide certainty to them, it was not intended to be immutable.”
Regarding the father’s argument that the mother go but the child stay behind, the judge referred to another case where it was said that despite the constitutional commitment to equality, the division of parenting roles in South Africa remained largely gender-based. It is still predominantly women who care for children and that reality appears to be reflected in many custody arrangements upon divorce.
Judge Mossop said the father’s attitude in this case revealed much about him as a person and the values to which he ascribed, especially if he was prepared for a little child to stay behind when her mother relocated.
“He appears to hold the view that the applicant’s career is an irrelevancy and that her rights to it are subservient to his rights. His rights and interests trump hers.”
The judge referred to one of several messages sent by the father to the mother, in which he said; “I want someone who supports me and has my back and makes me feel like I am the breadwinner and the man of the house. I did not feel that with us… you were too busy trying to compete or prove yourself… I wanted you to be there to treat me like I was your king for supporting our family.”
The man further told the mother of his child: “I am a man so it’s not my priority to look after your emotions, it’s my priority to provide for my family…”
The judge concluded the woman had a right to a life of her own and while the father may still see the child, she may relocate to Cape Town.
Pretoria News