Kwale Governor Fatuma Achani’s aide Nicky Gitonga and a woman identified as Leah Gitonga are currently embroiled in a child custody case involving a minor.
The case filed at the Msambweni Children’s court unmasks a grueling battle between the two who have apparently separated.
Leah who filed the case insists she is litigating on behalf of the minor, not in her personal capacity and wants the court to find it suitable to hand her custody.
Gitonga has maintained that he is the biological father of the minor and that he has been the primary caregiver for nearly eight years.
He claims that in 2018, the mother left the minor in the care of his mother before relocating abroad, effectively leaving him with full responsibility for the child’s welfare.
He argues that during this period, he provided for the minor’s physical, emotional, educational, and social needs without support from the mother who has denied the claims as well
He describes the mother as having been largely absent from the child’s life and asserts that disrupting the current custody arrangement would be harmful to the minor.
He further alleges that recent interactions initiated by the Plaintiff, including police involvement, caused the child emotional distress, and urges the court to preserve the status quo while seeking dismissal of the case.
In a detailed replying affidavit, the mother strongly disputes the father’s narrative, terming allegations of abandonment false, misleading, and defamatory.
She clarifies that the case is for the benefit of the minor, and that she is merely acting on the child’s behalf as allowed under the law.
She denies ever abandoning her child, stating that leaving the minor temporarily in the care of the father and his mother cannot amount to abandonment, which she notes is a criminal offence under Kenyan law.
The mother explains that her relocation was during what she describes as a difficult and distressing period, marked by unemployment, lack of support, and strained domestic circumstances.
She maintains that she never relinquished her parental rights and emphasizes that the Children’s Department itself described the father’s custody as temporary, a term she argues has now expired.
Addressing claims that the minor was emotionally distressed after visiting a police station, the mother rejects the allegation, arguing that the station involved has a child protection desk staffed by trained officers.
She challenges Nicky the father to provide expert evidence, such as a psychiatric report, to support claims of emotional or psychological harm.
She further disputes a school letter cited by the Defendant, arguing that it is ambiguous and does not clearly attribute the child’s distress to her involvement.
Instead, she suggests that the environment in which the minor currently lives may be contributing to emotional challenges.
The mother insists that the child has a constitutional and statutory right to know both biological parents, identify with her true parentage, and enjoy care and love from both.
She argues that facilitating court attendance was an opportunity for the minor to reconnect with her biological mother after prolonged denial of access by the father.
