In our work, we have come across fathers who think they are being punished when the mother of their child demands maintenance and also mothers who vow to “fix him” by demanding shocking figures of support from the father of their child.
Maintenance is not punishment; it is what is expected of a responsible person, mostly fathers and mothers, to help support their child, especially in circumstances where the child is not staying with them.
The law only comes into play to mediate when there is a dispute, in most cases, when the other party is unwilling to provide support.
Child maintenance, therefore, is a legal and moral obligation designed to ensure that children do not suffer unnecessary deprivation.
Unfortunately, maintenance remains one of the most misunderstood areas of family law, clouded by myths, resentment, and deliberate misinformation. This article seeks to reframe the conversation by placing the child at the centre and dismantling misconceptions about child support.
Is maintenance a child’s right or a parent’s burden?
Maintenance is a legal duty imposed on a “responsible person” to provide for the basic needs of a dependent.
These needs include food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care. Contrary to what most people believe, both parents share this responsibility, regardless of their relationship status.
- In Full: Nineteenth post-cabinet press briefing: July 05, 2022
- Revisiting Majaivana’s last show… ‘We made huge losses’
- Too young to marry: The secret world of child brides
- Edutainment mix: The nexus of music and cultural identity
Keep Reading
Whether parents are married, divorced, separated, or never cohabited, the obligation to maintain a child remains intact.
Maintenance is not about the custodial parent benefiting at the expense of the other; it is about ensuring the child’s needs are met.
Courts assess maintenance based on the needs of the child, the means of both parents, and the standard of living the child is entitled to. The focus is not on punishing one parent but on safeguarding the child’s welfare.
Common misconceptions about maintenance
Refusal to pay because the other parent has remarried
A widespread misconception is that maintenance obligations fall away when the custodial parent remarries. This is legally incorrect. The duty to maintain a child lies with the biological or legally responsible parents, not the new spouse. Remarriage of the mother does not extinguish the father’s obligation. The child’s right to support is not dependent on the mother’s marital status. Remember, maintenance is to support the child, not the mother’s or father’s new relationship.
.
Assuming maintenance ends automatically at 18
While the law provides that maintenance orders are automatically discharged when a child turns 18, this is not the end of the story. A child who has attained 18 but is not yet self-sufficient, such as one still in school or college, can approach the court to seek continued maintenance. The legal position is clear: Turning 18 does not mean the child automatically no longer needs support.
Withholding maintenance due to personal disputes
Many parents wrongfully use maintenance as leverage in disputes over custody, access, or personal grievances. This is unlawful and misguided. Maintenance is a right of the child, not a bargaining tool between parents.
Failure to disclose true income
Some respondents deliberately understate income to reduce maintenance obligations. Courts are increasingly alert to such conduct and may impute income where there is evidence of concealment. Maintenance is calculated based on the actual means of the respondent.
Ignoring legal procedures for variation or discharge of maintenance orders
Instead of formally applying for variation, some individuals unilaterally reduce or stop payments when circumstances change. This is a serious mistake. A maintenance order remains binding until it is lawfully varied or discharged by the court.
Variation of maintenance orders
The law recognises that circumstances change over time, and therefore allows for variation of maintenance orders. A variation may be sought where there is a material change in circumstances, such as loss of employment or reduced income, increased needs of the child, including school fees, medical expenses, and a change in custody arrangements. The application must be made to the maintenance court, supported by evidence explaining the change. Variation is based on changes affecting the child or the financial capacity of the parents, not irrelevant personal developments such as the remarriage of the custodian.
Discharge of maintenance orders
A maintenance order may be discharged under specific circumstances, including the child turning 18, the child becoming self-supporting, the death of the child, or the adoption of the child. However, discharge is not always final in practical terms. Although the law provides for automatic discharge at 18, it simultaneously allows a child who is still dependent to apply for maintenance. Thus, a child pursuing education or training may continue receiving maintenance. Where there is a genuine grievance, such as abuse of maintenance, the affected party should approach the court with the grievance for redress.
Maintenance of children with disabilities
The law makes special provision for children who are unable to support themselves due to physical or mental disability. Such children may be maintained beyond the age of 18, often indefinitely, depending on the nature and extent of the disability. In these cases, the determining factor is not age but capacity for self-support.
The danger of misinformation
Misinformation about maintenance is harmful. It fuels conflict, encourages non-compliance, and ultimately deprives children of their rights. Maintenance is not about parents; it is about the child. Instead of viewing maintenance as a burden, using it as punishment or a tool of control, it must be understood as a moral obligation to a child.
Conclusion
The duty to maintain a child is rooted in the child’s needs rather than the personal circumstances of the parents. Turning 18 does not automatically terminate the need for support. Remarriage does not extinguish responsibility and personal disputes do not justify withholding maintenance. The law is not concerned with punishing a parent; it is concerned with protecting children. Those receiving support on behalf of a child should not abuse that support, but use it as intended.
Chinga Govhati is a child protection advocate and can be contacted on +263773287898. Pamellah Musimwa is a child rights lawyer and can be contacted on +263777000542
