Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

5regard, was that in the intervening period (which is to say, fromapproximately the time of R’s birth until his departure from thecommon home) he assisted the Respondent in caring for R,which assistance included the changing of nappies, bathing andhelping to put her to sleep.6 For reasons which are best known to the Respondent and reallynot addressed in the papers, she caused R to be registered withher surname rather than that of the Applicant. This fact onlycame to the attention of the Applicant some time later.TheApplicant alleged that the Respondent’s failure to give R hissurname constituted evidence of the fact that she was not actingin R’s best interests. The Respondent’s evidence in that regardwas as follows:“95.1 I ….. I admit that I have decided, to in the bestinterests of our minor daughter, that our minordaughter not be registered with the surname of theApplicant. I submit that the reason for my decisionwas because I was never convinced that theApplicant would truly and on a permanent basiswould form a family with myself and our minordaughter due to the history of the Applicant.I