About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 244
|
|
Louw v Louw (75723/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 244 (22 December 2010)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
DATE:
22 December 2010
CASE
NO: 75723/2010
In
the matter between:
JOHANNA
SUSANNA MARGARETHA LOUW
….......................................
APPLICANT
vs.
SCHALK
WILLEM JURIE
LOUW
....................................................................
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
BOTHA
J:
The
applicant applies for an order that the minor daughter of the
parties, N, be enrolled in the Eduplex Private School in Queenswood
for the 2011 school year. The parties were previously married. N is
11 years old.
On
19 June 2007 the court made an order in terms of which N would spend
alternative weeks with each parent. The order provided for
therapy
and counselling for N and her parents and that the matter could be
enrolled before the same judge as a partly heard matter
after a
report has been received from the post-divorce counsellor and N's
therapist that no further therapy and counselling is
required.
It
is common cause that up till now N has received her schooling in the
Revival Christian College, a private faith based school
following the
so-called ACE (Accelerated Christian Education) curriculum.
The
particular school attended by N was situated in Mayville. When the
school moved to Montana it became more convenient for N to
stay with
the respondent.
The
applicant now contends that the method of instruction in the ACE
schools, not being class bound, it detrimental to the development
of
N. She submits that she is a child of superior intelligence who has
fallen behind, especially in respect of her verbal intelligence.
She
relied mainly on reports of dr L du Toit and dr Krige.
This
is an application that is interlocutory to the partly heard
application where the primary residence of N is at stake.
If
N were to be moved to the school suggested by the applicant it would
entail a disruption in her education.
Depending
on the outcome of the main application there may be another
disruption in store.
It
is obvious that to place N in the school suggested by the applicant
would be more burdensome to the respondent.
One
can criticise the educational model of ACE schools, depending on ones
educational philosophy. It is so that those schools do
not provide
automatic entrance to universities. At this stage, where N is about
to start grade 6, that is not an acute issue.
In
my view there is no reason to disturb the existing regime where the
main application is still to be decided. Advocate Bosman,
who,
appeared for the applicant, suggested that the determination of the
main application could still be years in the future. I
think that is
an unduly pessimistic prognostication.
In
my view there is no reason to disturb the status quo.
The
application is dismissed with costs.
C.
BOTHA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT