- The mother told the court her son was being homeschooled, but the judge found he had actually been sitting at home without any tuition or help from a qualified teacher.
- Judge Bam found that the mother purposely kept back important information about her son’s schooling and did not set the record straight in earlier court hearings.
- These findings shaped the court’s view of the father’s contempt case and his request to change his son’s school.
A mother misled the court about her 15-year-old son’s education by calling his situation homeschooling, even though he was not getting any tuition, the High Court in Pretoria heard.
In a judgment on 12 November 2026, Judge NN Bam looked at what the mother had said in earlier hearings and found she had deliberately kept quiet about her son’s schooling and did not reveal that he was sitting at home without any help with his education.
The dispute started with both parents filing urgent court applications. The mother wanted the father to be found in contempt of court for not following an earlier order about their son’s return to a private school. The father opposed this and filed a counter-application to change the school arrangements.
Judge Bam’s review of the mother’s statements was key to deciding if the father was in contempt and if the current school placement should change.
Judge questions mother’s version of events
The dispute goes back to July 2026, when the father went to court asking that his son return to mainstream school. He was worried his son was not getting proper educational support through what the mother described as homeschooling. He also said he did not know who was providing the teaching, what curriculum was being used, or what academic help his son was getting.
Both parents agreed to a court order on 28 July 2026 that said their son should be re-enrolled at a private school, as long as he had an academic assessment. They also agreed to accept the school’s decision, even if it meant he would have to repeat Grade 10.
But during a meeting with the Parenting Co-ordinator on 12 August, the father said he found out his son had not been to any school or received any tuition since the end of May 2026. This made him question what the mother had told the court in July.
In her affidavit at the time, the mother insisted her son was being homeschooled because she could not afford school fees and claimed the father had refused to help find an affordable school.
She denied ever saying her son was enrolled in a formal, registered, or accredited homeschooling programme. Judge Bam did not accept this explanation after looking at her earlier affidavits, WhatsApp messages, and the details of her son’s education.
The judge found the mother knew what proper homeschooling meant but kept using the word even though there was no structured teaching. Judge Bam said the mother had “deliberately used the word homeschooling knowing full well that the minor was sitting at home without any assistance or guidance of a trained educator”.
The judge also found the mother had kept back vital information about her son’s education. “It could not have been difficult for her to state that the minor is sitting at home without any form of tuition from any school,” Judge Bam said.
The judgment also criticised the mother for not correcting the record when the father raised concerns about their son’s education in earlier hearings.
School’s warnings contradicted mother’s account
The court also looked at letters from the school, which raised concerns about the boy’s academic progress and whether he could successfully return to the school. The school said he had missed about three months of work and wondered if he could catch up in the shortened academic term.
The school also warned both parents that their son might have to repeat Grade 10 in 2027. Later, the school said that for him to be admitted, both parents had to sign a contract and pay R47 125. The father told the court he had paid R28 125 to the school and asked for an academic assessment. However, the school said any assessment would show poor results because the boy had missed the second term.
Judge Bam looked at the boy’s academic history, including his weak performance in the first term, failing English, and unfinished assignments. The judge questioned why the mother kept insisting the school would help her son pass Grade 10 when the school’s letters clearly raised doubts about whether he could catch up.
The court also looked at the parents’ financial history. The existing maintenance order said both parents should share public school fees equally. But in 2024, the mother moved her son from a public to a private school without discussing the decision with the father first.
The father had earlier paid about R42 000 in outstanding school fees when he found out the mother had not paid her share. She later repaid him R35 194. Judge Bam noted that the father had been helping to pay for his son’s education, and questioned why the mother was trying to have him jailed for contempt while he was actually funding their child’s schooling.
The judge said the mother’s actions showed poor judgment and found that her contempt application was not really about her son’s best interests.
Why contempt allegations were rejected
When deciding on the contempt application, Judge Bam looked at the legal rules for civil contempt. These include whether there was a court order, if the person knew about the order, if there was non-compliance, and if there was intentional or bad-faith disobedience.
Since the mother wanted a result that could send the father to jail, the allegations had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the father knew about the July order, Judge Bam considered his reasons for not going ahead with re-enrolling his son at the school.
The judge found that things had changed a lot after it became clear the boy had received no tuition for months and after the school’s warnings about his academic progress.
The father had also said he was not sure if sending his son back to the private school for the rest of the year would be useful. Judge Bam decided the father’s actions did not amount to intentional or bad-faith disobedience of the July order. The judge also dismissed the mother’s argument that the father could not bring his own application until he had cleared himself of the alleged contempt.
Judge explains why school placement had to change
When looking at the father’s counter-application, Judge Bam focused on what the teenager needed for his education and what would really happen if they kept the current arrangement.
The father suggested his son should be enrolled at another school, if it agreed to take him. If that was not possible, the Parenting Co-ordinator, Advocate Mari Fabricius, would pick another suitable public school after hearing from both parents.
The mother opposed the idea and raised concerns about unpaid fees, contracts, and future school costs. Judge Bam referred to the Children’s Act, which says parents must try to solve problems peacefully and always put the child’s best interests first.
The judge stressed that arguments between parents should not stop them from making decisions about their child’s education. When explaining why things had to change, Judge Bam said the teenager’s best interests must come before the parents’ fighting.
The new order says the boy will stay in his mother’s care and be enrolled at the school suggested by the father as soon as possible, depending on the school’s admission rules. If the high school cannot admit him soon, Fabricius is allowed to pick another suitable public school after getting all the information needed and letting both parents have their say.
The school can also do an academic assessment and suggest extra help like remedial programmes, tutoring, or support classes if needed. Both parents must cooperate with the enrolment process and are not allowed to delay it by keeping back documents, signatures, or information.
The court ordered the mother to pay the father’s legal costs for both the contempt application and the counter-application on Scale B.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
