THE case involving Tidings Nyandowe and his failure to pay school fees for his two children raises an important question about parental responsibility and priorities.
If a parent claims to have no money to meet the educational needs of his children but can afford legal representation to defend himself in a dispute over those obligations, it is understandable that the public would question where his priorities lie.
Every child deserves access to education, and parents have a fundamental responsibility to do everything reasonably possible to ensure that their children attend school without unnecessary disruption. School fees are not a luxury or an optional expense to be considered only when convenient.
They are part of the responsibility that comes with bringing children into the world. Nyandowe, therefore, deserves scrutiny.
If he maintains that he cannot afford the school fees for his two children, yet has the financial means to hire a lawyer to defend himself in the matter, he must explain how these competing obligations are being managed.
The issue is not that anyone should be denied the right to legal representation, but that children’s welfare must never be treated as an afterthought.
It is important, however, to recognise that hiring a lawyer does not automatically prove that someone has money available for school fees.
Legal assistance may be paid for through instalments, borrowed funds, assistance from relatives or other arrangements.
Furthermore, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and the right to defend themselves in court.
Nevertheless, if Nyandowe has the means to meet his parental obligations but chooses not to do so, such conduct would be deeply disappointing.
Children should not suffer academically because adults are unable or unwilling to resolve financial and family disputes responsibly.
School fees are time-sensitive.
When payments are delayed, children may face uncertainty, miss lessons or experience embarrassment among their peers.
The emotional consequences can be just as damaging as the educational disruption.
Children should not have to carry the burden of disagreements between adults who are supposed to protect their interests.
This case should also remind Zimbabwean parents that responsibility does not end when a relationship breaks down.
Whether parents are married, separated or divorced, their children still need food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education.
A disagreement with a former partner must never become an excuse to neglect these obligations.
If Nyandowe genuinely cannot afford the fees, his financial circumstances should be established rather than judged solely on public allegations.
Where a parent has limited means, a realistic contribution arrangement may be more beneficial to the children than prolonged conflict.
But where a parent deliberately withholds support despite having the ability to pay, there must be appropriate legal consequences.
Maintenance obligations should not be treated as optional commitments that can be ignored without regard for the children affected.
Nyandowe deserves a fair hearing, but his children deserve fairness too.
If he can contribute towards their school fees, he should do so without unnecessary delay.
