When Ms CWG turned to the courts in 2023 seeking financial help to complete her university studies, she was not asking strangers but the only parents she had ever known.
Years earlier a married couple had adopted her, raised her and taken full parental responsibility. By adulthood the family had fractured.
Her adoptive mother moved to the United Kingdom while her adoptive father remained in Kenya. Their biological son lived abroad with his mother. The marriage had collapsed and the family was scattered across two continents.
Caught in the middle was a young woman pursuing higher education asking what happens when an adopted child turns 18 but remains dependent on separated parents.
After separation in 2022 Ms CMM relocated to the United Kingdom while Mr GG became the main provider for CWG’s education and upkeep, a role he said was increasingly difficult due to health and financial strain.
Although CWG was an adult she had not completed her studies and sought orders extending parental responsibility to finish university.
The case centred not only on fees but on whether parental responsibility continues after 18 where education is incomplete.
CWG said she had enrolled in tertiary education but faced setbacks, later joining a bridging programme before securing fresh admission. She asked both parents to support her until completion.
The Children’s Court in Milimani extended parental responsibility but ordered Mr GG to cater for all needs pending hearing.
He cited illness including hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia and complications from surgery affecting his earning capacity.
He claimed Ms CMM was financially stable, living in the United Kingdom and earning income from employment and rental properties while failing to contribute.
Evidence suggested she earned about Sh265,000 monthly and owned property in Nairobi.
CWG supported her father’s appeal, saying the court had not properly assessed both parents’ means and that she remained dependent while studying International Relations.
Ms CMM disputed the claims, questioned CWG’s academic progress and noted she was supporting their biological son in the United Kingdom, which had also led to litigation.
A separate High Court ruling had already set aside an order requiring Mr GG to pay Sh85,000 monthly for that son’s maintenance.
The High Court noted the lower court had not fully considered both parents’ financial positions and health circumstances.
However, the appeal failed as the court found each parent already carried responsibility for one child.
The mother remained in the United Kingdom caring for her son while the father supported the adopted daughter in Kenya.
The case reflects modern families separated by borders where adult children remain dependent and obligations persist after breakdown of relationships.
The judgment reaffirmed that parental responsibility may extend beyond 18 where education continues and that adoptive parents carry the same duties as biological parents.
The matter now returns to the Children’s Court for determination while the family remains divided by distance and responsibility.
At the centre of the dispute was a wider question about the nature of family obligations in law and in practice. The court was asked to interpret how far parental responsibility extends where a child has legally become an adult but has not achieved economic independence. The situation highlighted the gap between legal adulthood and financial reality, particularly in cases involving ongoing education.
The judges also considered the principle of equality in parental responsibility. Under Kenyan family law, both parents are generally expected to share responsibility for the welfare and education of their children in proportion to their means. In this case, however, separation, geographical distance and health challenges complicated the application of that principle.
The court noted that while CWG’s needs were not in dispute, the capacity of each parent to contribute was contested. Mr GG’s medical condition and reduced earning ability were weighed against allegations that Ms CMM had stable income and assets abroad. The court emphasised that such disputes require careful balancing rather than automatic allocation of financial burden.
Another issue that influenced the court’s reasoning was the existence of parallel proceedings involving the couple’s biological son. The fact that each parent was already providing primary care for one child created a practical arrangement that the court found difficult to disturb at an interim stage. This reinforced the view that responsibility could, in effect, be divided between the parents based on existing caregiving realities.
The judgment also reflected on the emotional complexity of adoptive relationships after marital breakdown. Although adoption creates permanent legal ties, the breakdown of a marriage can strain the practical expression of those obligations. The court was careful to reaffirm that adoption carries the same legal force as biological parenthood, regardless of later changes in family structure or residence.
For CWG, the ruling meant continued reliance on her father while she completed her education. For Mr GG, it meant carrying significant financial responsibility despite health challenges. For Ms CMM, it confirmed ongoing responsibility for their son in the United Kingdom.
The case illustrated the tension between fairness, legal duty and practical reality in modern family disputes that span multiple jurisdictions and financial circumstances. The court therefore left the matter to proceed in the Children’s Court for full determination, with both parents retaining legal obligations, and emphasised that future orders must carefully balance fairness, dependency, and each party’s proven financial capacity while prioritising the best interests of the adopted child and ensuring continuity of her education without further disruption going forward now.
