Bearing children in a family is a blessing that should be appreciated. This is so because many other families struggle and fail to have even a child.
However, certain families misuse and abuse the rights of children in many ways, but struggling for ownership of children upon divorce and separation is one thing that is confusing.
It may be hard to believe what may cause partners to struggle for ownership of children. It may also beat the understanding of many who are in bliss-full relationships.
However, the fact is that society is faced with such custody problems when a couple breaks up. Apart from few societies in Africa, in most societies children belong to both parents although they become part of their fathers` clan.
Despite the fact that societies have well established norms, disputes arise mainly when hard times like separation knock on the doors.
Surely, children belong to a family thus a product of marriage. Thus children are supposed to be a source of family strength rather than trouble.
Children should be looked at as a unifying factor that parents put into consideration before taking up any decision that can either ruin their future or bring an end to marriage.
However, all that is ignored when making decisions upon divorce. Last week, a couple in Kimironko, that has been in marriage for the last 7 years struggled over custody of their two children.
What attracted the curiosity of many people is the fact that both parents claimed ownership of children thus the right to custody.
The mother claimed that based on the kids young age, they are supposed to remain with her. Because of their antics, many people thought they were not serious about divorcing.
However, another concerned community member who seemed to have gone through such experience confirmed that such tactics are sued by partners to create confusion.
“When partners do not want to divorce, they claim ownership of children. With men, when they are still in love, they do the same,” noted the concerned community member.
She also explained that men go ahead by only making orders “get every thing that belongs to you and move out, but intentionally do not provide transport costs”.
However, in a totally different response to her argument, one said that women too deliberately decide to claim that they can not afford transport to their homes yet they can afford some things that are more expensive than transports costs.
“Our women are pretenders too, why is it that they are able to buy expensive clothes and other things but fail to transport themselves when it comes to going to their homes?” he asked.
However, based on the claims of the bothered couple and the arguments of those who intervened, although causes of the chaos were not being put forward in a clear manner for authorities to take a clear stand, it emerged that both parties still had interest in one another based on how their claims could not give out a clear solution.