Mother wins court battle to end child's two-hour school commute

The plight of a young boy who has to travel two hours a day to and from school came under the judicial spotlight when the mother successfully turned to court in a bid to place the child in a school closer to her home.

The mother approached the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, after the child’s father refused her permission to change the child’s school.

The wife, however, obtained an order that the father did not need to give his consent under the circumstances for her to change schools.

The court further confirmed that the father will be accountable for the new school fees, as per an earlier maintenance court order.

The parents have a 12-year-old son, and they lived together in Benoni up to 2016. At the end of their relationship, the mother moved out and took the boy with her.

He started schooling in Benoni two years later, and the agreement was that he would spend the afternoons after school at his father’s house until his mother picked him up later.

He also spent Wednesday nights with his father, as well as weekends, although there was no formal parental agreement between the parents.

In June 2022, the mother relocated with the child to Edenvale, although he still remained in the school in Benoni.

In 2024, the mother’s partner raised concerns about the child’s declining school performance and his low energy levels, which he attributed to the travelling time M (the child) spends on the road daily to and from Benoni.

He suggested that M should be registered at a school in Edenvale and further proposed that a discussion and mediation should take place.

In response, the father stated that he was not agreeable to M changing schools.

The couple, however, attended mediation, but this ended as the father said he would only consider consent for his child to change schools once he had resolved the maintenance issues he had with the mother.

She had, meanwhile, earmarked a suitable school closer to her home, but the school said it needed consent from both parents before it could enroll the child.

The mother subsequently turned to court and argued that the Children’s Act does not require the consent of the father as co-holder of parental rights and responsibilities regarding the enrolment of the child to a school.

The father, on the other hand, maintained that both parties must make a collective decision regarding the school where M will be enrolled. 

The mother told the court that the daily commute to and from school, including picking M up from his father, takes almost two hours.

By the end of the day, he often feels cranky and hungry, leaving him with little time to prepare for his schoolwork.

The mother acknowledges that relocating M to a school in Edenvale would take away at least a day of visitation with his father, but she proposed that he sleep over on Sunday nights to make up for lost time.

The father, in turn, said his son does not seem keen to change schools and that the father will only consider this issue once his other gripes with the mother have been resolved.

Judge Sandiswa Mfenyana ruled in favour of the mother and remarked that the father seemed more concerned about his own issues than the well-being of his child. She pointed out that the Children’s Act did not, in any event, require the father’s consent in changing schools.

Cape Times