Thika nurse loses custody of 8-year-old son she dumped while 8 months old

A woman who resides in Thika has lost the battle for custody of her 8-year-old son, whom she abandoned as an 8-month-old baby.

This is after the high court overturned a decision by a Thika magistrate’s court to grant the woman, a nurse, full custody of the boy, despite the child preferring his father over her.

In his determination, the judge found that the boy’s mom, GNM and the ex-partner EA are the biological parents of the child referred to as LPA, a grade four pupil. 

Justice Benjamin Musyoki, in his decision rendered on April 17, 2026, directed that the dad shall have exclusive actual custody of the child while arrangements are made for the child to go through counselling by a child psychologist with appropriate steps of reconnecting him with the mother.

"The respondent (GNM) shall, upon and simultaneous with the counselling as ordered, have limited and supervised visitations as the child psychologist shall recommend,” Justice Musyoki directed.

The high court faulted the lower court for failing to consider the best interest of the child as provided in the Constitution and the Children’s Act to grant the mom custody of the boy, who was traumatised and wanted to return to the dad.

“In conclusion, this appeal is merited and I proceed to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Considering the above holding and the circumstances of this case, I hold that the respondent (GNM) shall be granted limited, progressive and supervised visitations.”

According the court documents, the mother who a nurse working with a local private hospital told court that the two parties were the biological parents of the child but claimed the ex-partner walked out of their residence and took the child with him only to dump him with a relative who was not disclosed to her.

In cross-examination, she told the court that she cohabited with the EA between 2015 and 2018, while the child was born in 2015.

She stated that she started living in Nyeri in 2016, and according to her, the child had been living with the grandmother since 2017.

She claimed further that the child told her that he had been mentally and physically tortured. She concluded that she had another child born in 2018.

However, EA told the court that when they separated, GMN had the custody of the child but in January 2016 when the child was barely eight months, she dumped and left him with his office in Nairobi after he had complained of leaving the child at a day care for long despite his tender age.

He added that the minor was taken to their home in Kitengela where he resided until 2020 when they relocated to their upcountry in Kakamega, where he resided with his parents.

He added that he had single-handedly taken care of the child from that age with proper vaccinations and diet since the respondent denied him breast milk at very early age.

He wondered why the respondent waited for 8 years before she came to claim custody, at the moment the child barely recognised her.

Upon close of the parties’ testimonies, the court held the view that the child should be interviewed by the court for his wishes to be ascertained.

When he was interviewed, the child stated that he was schooling in grade 4 at a private academy, and that he was living in Kakamega with his father, grandfather and grandmother.

He confirmed that his both his parents were in court and that he wanted to continue staying with his father. He added that the last time he saw his mother was back in August 2023.

A child’s report filed through an order of the court showed that the child lived with grandparents in Kakamega in a three bedroomed semi-permanent house where the father visited every weekend.

The child told the officer that his father bought him crisps and soda every weekend, and he liked him.

It is indicated that the child stated that the mother abandoned him at the age of eight months and that he preferred staying with his father and grandparents.

He also liked his current school and added that even after being picked by his mother, he wanted to be back to his father and grandparents.

The report shows that after interviewing the child, parents, grandparents, aunt and area Chief, the officer concluded that the boy was scared of his mother and he preferred staying with his grandparents and father.

The report stated further that the child’s mother gave conflicting statements about her separation from the boy.

In his verdict, the judge noted that whereas the parents have the right to be and bond with their children, every court, institution, body or person making a decision on issues or matters touching on custody of and access to a child must weigh the circumstances surrounding the dispute and establish where the interest and welfare of the child is likely to be served best.

“Of course, bonding with both parents will be in the interest of a child, but the bonding must be allowed in such a way that it will not be counterproductive or compromise the welfare of the child. Whereas to be a biological parent may be one of the considerations, it is not enough to afford one a right of custody.”

Justice Musyoki added,  “The court or the decision maker must go further and examine the character and antecedent of the parent and establish whether there is a likelihood of the order for custody or access affecting the child in a negative way.”