A Durban mom has been granted permission to relocate to Cape Town with her two-year-old daughter in spite of opposition from the child’s father who, the judge labelled, as being egocentric and driven by his own interests.
Pietermaritzburg high court judge Rob Mossop said the mother, a domestic underwriter who had been offered a promotion on condition that she move, was entitled to a career and a life of her own — something the father refused to acknowledge.
“There is no acknowledgment by the respondent [the father] that she should be able to get ahead or that she has a career and aspirations of her own. I do not accept that as a valid proposition,” he said.
“Life itself is uncertain and unpredictable and a person must make the most of opportunities that present themselves from time to time... this applies to all citizens of our country, but especially so to women who for too long have been denied opportunities for self-advancement. She should be encouraged, not restrained from improving herself and thereby the minor child.”
The couple never married and broke up when the child was about 14 months old.
At that time, they concluded a parenting plan giving the mom primary residence and the father generous access.
However, it contained a non-relocation clause stating neither could move from KwaZulu-Natal or South Africa without the written consent of the other.
In her urgent application which came before Mossop on Monday, the woman said one of the reasons for the break up was that the father, a self-employed printer, had spoken to her in a demeaning fashion, had belittled her and used harsh language towards and about her.
She said while he paid her R9,000 a month maintenance, she was still not able to make ends meet and was subsidised by her parents, who were also now planning to move to Cape Town.
The promotion, which would add R7,000 a month to her salary, was difficult to turn down and would be a significant change to her economic reality.
But the father described this as insubstantial. He accused her of reneging on the parenting plan.
In a letter, his lawyers said he would not give his written consent, that the child had a close bond with his family and his two children from a previous relationship and proposed that the child live primarily with him if the mother insisted on moving.
Mossop said this proposal ignored the bond such a young child had with her mother.
He said he discerned indications the father was not truly motivated by what was in the best interests of his daughter but rather by what was in his best interests.
He said he was perturbed that he held the view that a two-year-old should be separated from her mother, without considering the anxiety and stress this would cause.
“His attitude on this single point reveals much about him as a person and the values to which he ascribes.
“He also seems to hold the view that the applicant’s career is an irrelevancy and that her rights are subservient to his rights. His rights and interests trump hers.”
Mossop said this was demonstrated in a message he sent to her in March last year in which he stated that he wanted to be treated like a “king”, the breadwinner and the man of the house.
The father lamented that she was “too busy trying to compete or prove yourself” and stated that “I am a man so it’s not my priority to look after your emotions... it’s my priority to provide for my family”.
Mossop said: “Unfortunately, this entirely egocentric point of view appears to continue to guide him. He states that she should simply resign from her present employment and take up different employment in Durban to enable him to continue enjoying his rights of contact. To this end, he puts up job advertisements that he contends she should respond to.
“The applicant is, however, already in secure employment and has been offered a career path to progress further. Should she be required to forfeit that to meet his needs? I think not.
“The fact of the matter is that because the applicant has had a child with the respondent does not mean that her entitlement to a life of her own must be discounted and ignored while his can continue as he chooses and directs. This is something he does not appear to acknowledge.”
Mossop said there were other aspects of the case that did not sit well with him.
One was the submission that the mom wanted to relocate, not for an increased salary, but for “increased status”.
Another was that she had not demonstrated that she was not making ends meet.
“This is borderline distasteful. The proposition appears to be that as long as she has just enough, that is adequate.”
The judge said it was entirely human on an emotional level for the dad not wanting his daughter to move.
“That he has done so on this level perhaps demonstrates the full extent of his love for his child. But such reflexive opposition is ultimately one-dimensional and does not demonstrate any objective reasoning concerning what would really be in the best interests of the child.
“In my view, the relocation is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the child that she accompanies her mother in that move, subject to the respondent’s rights of access being preserved as best they can in the changed circumstances.”
He granted the mom permission to relocate and set out access arrangements for the father, including direct access if he is Cape Town, video contact every day and that the mom bring the child to Durban for a long weekend at least once a year.
TimesLIVE
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.