Happening Now: LIVE: Agriculture CS Mithika Linturi's impeachment trial
Eldoret Magistrate defends her ruling in viral child upkeep case
A magistrate in a child upkeep case captured in a viral video has now defended her verdict, saying it was in line with the law and in the best interests of mother and children.
The video captured by Nation. Africa shows a furious woman angrily disputing the court as the ruling on her two children’s upkeep was being read last Friday.
The 25-year-old mother objected to the ruling at the Family court that directed the father of her two minors, who is a high school principal to pay the school fees for the minors and remit Sh5,000 for her monthly upkeep.
The court heard that the minors were born as a result of an extramarital affair between the petitioner and the respondent, who is a high school principal and a married man.The case was filed in court in May this year.
Also Read: Child support dilemma: To sue or not to sue?
The angry accused the court of being too lenient to the father, indicating that she had expected the court to compel the respondent to meet all the needs of the minors in her custody, including food, medical care, clothing, and shelter.
“What is the school fees for the minors all about when the youngest is yet to join the school? This is an unfair ruling I cannot accept it, she angrily protested within the court, interrupting proceedings.
Efforts by the court to convince her to appeal the ruling if she was not satisfied bore no fruits, as the woman claimed that there was a lot of corruption in the judiciary system hence she saw no need.
Principal Magistrate Christine Menya now says the purpose of a trial in children matters is to decide based on the best interest principle.
She insists her ruling was fair since she ruled in favor of the applicant about the law, which gives priority to the rights of children.
Section 81 of the Children’s Act Number 8 of 2001 Laws of Kenya, defines child custody to be “so much of the parental rights and duties as related to the possession of the child. Care and control mean “actual possession of a child, whether or not that possession is shared with one or more persons,” she explained.
According to Ms Menya, her ruling considered the above law in totality.As per the Children Act of 2001, such an order for maintenance is made when the court orders a person to make payment for the child’s upkeep.
Generally, where both parents are married or get married after the child is born, both parents must maintain the child. Where the parents are not married, a father who has acquired parental responsibility also must maintain the child.
“When making such an application for maintenance, the applicant has to file an affidavit of means stating the child’s expenditure as well as provide proof of the expenditure and that is what happened in this case,” stated Ms Menya, stating that her ruling was fair and the woman together with the two minors was given fair judgment.
The magistrate said that she was not regretting her ruling, urging the applicant to appeal in a superior court of law if she was dissatisfied.
“In my ruling, I did my best as per the law with the interests of the children and if the applicant is not satisfied, she has a right to appeal my ruling,” stated Ms Menya.
The law states that when making an order for maintenance, the Children’s Court considers the following factors: the income or earning capacity, property and other financial resources the person has or is likely to have in the near future, the financial needs, obligations, or responsibilities, which each party has or is likely to have in the near future
The same law also considers the financial needs of the child and the child’s current circumstances among other factors.
Ironically, after the contested ruling and the drama caused by the woman at the court, both the defendant and the applicant boarded the accused man’s vehicle and they drove away from the court premises.
