Judge orders children be enrolled in boarding school due to mother’s neglect

High Court judge Justice Fatima Chakapamambo Maxwell has ruled that three minor children be placed in boarding school due to their mother’s neglect of their educational well-being.

The judge stated the children’s best interests throughout his ruling, criticising both parents but finding the mother’s shortcomings more detrimental.

The children who are cited as S.M., A.K.M., and T.C.M., were at the centre of a custody battle between their parents, Pisirai Mangwengwende and Prudence Chiritsa.

In September 2023, the High Court awarded custody to Chiritsa on condition that both parents attend counselling sessions aimed at improving their communication and parenting skills. The sessions were also meant to address the children’s reported fear of their father.

A report by a court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Phillip Moses, however, revealed that neither parent had attended any counselling sessions.

The report further detailed absenteeism on the part of all three children. One child’s school even suggested expulsion due to the excessive absences.

Mangwengwende, through his lawyer, K. Kachambwa, argued that Chiritsa’s defiance of the court order regarding counselling and her failure to address the absenteeism issue rendered her unfit to be custodian.

He requested sole custody and the authority to place the children in boarding school.

Chiritsa, represented by the Legal Aid Directorate, denied being notified of the counselling sessions and argued that Mangwengwende’s financial contribution was insufficient to maintain the children’s prior lifestyle, attributing the absenteeism to this.

She also raised concerns about her children’s fear of their father.

Justice Maxwell acknowledged the shortcomings of both parents.

She noted, “It is trite that each matter is dealt with on its own merits and circumstances.”

The judge, however, placed significant weight on the psychologist’s report:

“Respondent’s capacity and disposition to give the children guidance is questionable particularly relating to their educational development…,” Justice Maxwell said.

While acknowledging Ms. Chiritsa’s continued custody as initially determined, Justice Maxwell found the situation warranted an interim order.

She stated: “It would be a dereliction of duty for this court…to ignore the Respondent’s clear shortcomings in catering for the children’s educational development.”

Criticising Chiritsa’s vilification of Mangwengwende to the children, Justice Maxwell concluded;

“In any event, (Mangwengwende) has not stated that he attended any counselling session at all. For him to expect the court to give him custody in circumstances where the children were found to be genuinely afraid of him without a report to the contrary is surprising.”

Justice Maxwell emphasised the importance of education, stating, “to allow the children to continue attending school from home whilst in the custody of the Respondent would be to be complicit in their absenteeism and that is detrimental to their educational development.”

The Judge ruled that Mangwengwende could enroll the children in boarding school for the second term of 2024 and ordered both parents to recommence counselling sessions.

The final decision on custody will be determined after the counselling is complete and a report is submitted by the psychologist.