Don’t use children to settle scores, court tells parents fighting over teen
Parents should not use their children to settle their personal scores, the Family Court has ruled.
Parents should not use their children to settle their personal scores, the Family Court has ruled. Justice John Onyiego said the best interest of a child is paramount, superior to that of the parents and that it cannot be compromised, even in the absence of consultation between parties.
“Failure to be consulted in frosty relationship between the two parties was/is inevitable and the child cannot be made to be the sacrificial lamb for parents to settle personal scores,” said the judge.
The judge made the ruling in a case in which a couple disagreed on whether their teenage child should proceed overseas for further studies.
While the child’s mother was of the opinion that it was in the best interest of the child to proceed with the scholarship programme abroad, the father was reluctant and wanted the court to stop the move citing safety of the child and that he was not consulted before the decision was arrived at.
Travel to the UK
The case started when the woman moved to Mombasa's Tononoka Children court seeking orders that the minor be allowed to travel to the UK to join college for a two-year programme.
She also lamented that the father failed to help the minor with necessary documentation required by the British Immigration department and the college to enable the minor to process her visa application.
She asked for the court's intervention.
The man, however, opposed the application, arguing that the woman failed to consult him before making the decision for the child to study abroad.
“The conduct and background of the person sponsoring the minor was not clear nor known to me,” he said, adding that it was not safe for the minor to travel outside the country.
He also lamented that he had been denied access to the child for the past one year.
After hearing both sides, Principal Magistrate Viola Yator ruled in the favour of the woman, noting that it was in the best interest of the child that she travels to the UK to pursue further studies.
The magistrate further observed that the safety of the child was guaranteed as she was to stay within the college as a boarder.
“At the age of 16 years, she is capable of managing her affairs unlike a child of tender age,” said the magistrate.
Aggrieved, the man rushed to the Family Court to appeal against it and asked the High Court to rescind the magistrate’s verdict.
Temporary order
He also asked for a temporary order halting the execution of magistrate’s directive until the appeal is concluded.
“Unless the magistrate’s order is stayed, the child is likely to be taken out of the jurisdiction of the court without me being consulted, hence denying me parental care and custody,” he said
He insisted that the child should join Form Five and Form Six in Kenya and not necessarily outside the country.
“I have been faithfully paying school fees for the child. Her security will be compromised if she is released to a stranger in the name of a sponsor,” he said.
He clarified that he was not opposed to the minor proceeding abroad for further studies but rather the questionable process adopted in getting the admission and scholarship for the minor without his knowledge.
“In whose company is the child going to travel and whom is she going to stay with? he asked through his lawyer.
Fought back
However, the woman fought back, saying the orders being sought by the man are not in the best interest of the child.
“If the prayers sought are granted, the child will lose an opportunity to join a prestigious college courtesy of a scholarship,” she said.
She allayed fears expressed by the father noting that she will accompany her daughter and not the sponsor, hence there was no fear for her safety.
“The man will not suffer any substantial loss as he has refused to pay school fees for the minor for the last two years even when schooling here in Kenya. He had all along been informed of the scholarship application by the minor,” the woman said.
She also disclosed that the man had intended to take revenge against the minor who testified against him in an assault case where he was accused of assaulting her.
Threw out appeal
The judge threw out the appeal, noting that having secured a Sh10 million sponsorship, it would be prejudicial to stop the minor from pursuing further studies because she will lose that rare opportunity.
“The child cannot afford to lose the opportunity and then go back to the corridors of justice demanding for the father to pay school fees in a high cost school which he is not willing to pay,” said the judge.
The judge further argued that if the court were to grant the prayer sought, the opportunity will pass hence subject the minor to psychological trauma.
He noted the father had a genuine concern over the child’s safety but dismissed the same as lacking in evidence.
“The mother as a parent cannot be said to collude with the sponsor to subject the child to any risk,” he said.
From the court record, the couple have previously engaged in a legal tussle over custody of children, maintenance, and payment of school fees, divorce and division of property.
