Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

6submit that the only assurance I had was that I wasgoing to be the one to raise our minor daughter andit would thus make sense for her to have mysurname.”7 I mention this specifically at the outset because it is indicative ofthe Respondent’s attitude to the entire matter.Indeed, thethread which runs through her papers is that she and theApplicant hold very different moral values (this in particular inrelation to matters concerning relationships with members of theopposite sex), and also that he lacks the necessary parentingskills to be able to contribute meaningfully and positivelytowards R’s upbringing.8 I will return to this “theme”. For the present, suffice to say thatwhile that may be a valid emotional response, it is one which isutterly lacking in reason and inconsistent with all recognisedauthorities in the field of family law and practice – which is to theeffect that the best interests of children are (save in the mostexceptional instances of a kind which are not here in issue)inevitably best served by the child being recognised by, and asthe child of its biological father. Indeed, it is so well known as tobe a matter of common knowledge that children who are