Content creator Bhakita Esther has sparked debate after calling for men to remain legally responsible for child support even when DNA tests later establish that they are not a child's biological fathers.
Her remarks come amid the controversy surrounding Stevo Simple Boy's DNA test, which has reignited conversations about paternity, parental responsibility and the legal obligations of men raising children.
Bhakita argued that Kenya should adopt rules similar to those she believes exist in the United States, where signing a child's birth certificate could carry long-term financial consequences for a man, even if a subsequent DNA test disproves biological paternity.
In her statement, she insisted that men who voluntarily sign birth certificates should be required to support the children until they turn 18.
"We should have rules like in the USA, as long as your name appears on the birth certificate, that child is legally yours, even if DNA proves otherwise. If you signed it, you must pay child support until they are 18. No exemptions!!" she said.
Bhakita speaks on child support
Bhakita's proposal centres on the idea that signing a birth certificate should carry legal responsibilities that cannot automatically be overturned by a subsequent DNA test.
Her position suggests that men who acknowledge a child by signing the document should be held accountable for the decision, regardless of what later paternity results reveal.
The content creator's remarks have added to a wider public discussion about whether biological parenthood should determine financial responsibility or whether legal recognition and the child's welfare should also be considered.
For supporters of this approach, maintaining financial support could help protect children from sudden disruptions when paternity disputes emerge.
However, the proposal also raises questions about fairness to men who may have signed birth certificates believing they were the biological fathers.
Stevoo Simple Boy's DNA controversy
The debate comes against the backdrop of the controversy involving Kenyan musician Stevo Simple Boy and questions surrounding paternity.
The issue has drawn attention to the emotional and financial implications of DNA testing, particularly when the results challenge previously held beliefs about parenthood.
Such disputes can affect not only the adults involved but also children who depend on them for financial support, stability and care.
Bhakita's proposal seeks to prioritise continued financial responsibility, arguing that children should not automatically lose support because a DNA test changes the understanding of their biological parentage.
Could Kenya adopt such a law?
Bhakita's comments have also raised questions about how birth registration and child maintenance obligations should be handled in Kenya.
However, her description of American law is a generalisation. In the United States, the legal consequences of signing a birth certificate vary by state and circumstances, and genetic test results do not automatically resolve every question of legal parentage or child support.
In Kenya, questions of parental responsibility depend on the applicable law and the circumstances of each case. Signing a birth certificate does not necessarily settle every legal question about paternity or maintenance.
Bhakita's statement remains a proposal for how she believes the law should work, rather than a description of an established blanket rule in either country.
Her remarks have brought renewed attention to the difficult balance between protecting children's welfare and ensuring fairness when questions about biological parenthood arise.
