I'm not the dad: Why man wants name removed from birth certificate

A businessman has taken legal action against the Registrar of Persons and a woman, seeking the removal of his name from a child’s birth certificate.

In a petition filed at the High Court, the man claims he is being unfairly compelled to provide for a child he did not father, simply because his name appears on the birth certificate, allegedly without his consent.

The man admitted to having been in a relationship with the woman and that they had a child together, born on December 12, 2015. But he said that the current dispute concerns a different child, the woman’s firstborn, born in 2007, before their relationship began.

He alleges that the child’s mother altered the birth certificate and added his name as the father, without consulting him. “I reiterate that the Interested Party has misled the minor, VK, by using the information provided by the Respondent, portraying me as the biological father, which I am not. This is against my will,” he said in court.

He stated that the situation deteriorated when the woman sued him for child maintenance at the magistrate’s court, and the court subsequently issued orders obligating him to support the child conceived before their relationship began.

The man claimed that he approached the Registrar of Persons in an attempt to have his name removed from the birth record, but his request was ignored. “From the outset, including in response to demand letters, I have consistently denied paternity of the child in question. I have also denied ever giving consent for my name to be included in the child’s birth certificate. I communicated this clearly to the Registrar of Persons, citing the actions as unfair,” he submitted.

He told the court that he had once entrusted his identification card to the woman to assist with various transactions, including a land purchase, but that did not equate to agreeing to take parental responsibility.

He further noted that he is already supporting four other children and argued it is unreasonable to burden him with additional financial responsibilities for a child he did not sire.

He warned that the child may soon apply for a National Identification card using the contested birth certificate, thereby falsely establishing him as the father, an action he believes would be both unjust and unlawful.

“VK is preparing to sit for his Form 4 (Grade 12) examinations and will require the birth certificate to obtain an ID. If the document still bears my name, I will be falsely recognised as the father, which is not the truth,” he said.

The man further noted that the child’s mother has not denied that he is not the biological father. When he requested a DNA test in the lower court, she reportedly admitted he was not the child’s parent.

He now wants the court to declare that the inclusion of his name on the birth certificate was a violation of his rights and is asking for an order compelling the Registrar to delete his name. He is also seeking a declaration that he is under no legal obligation to support the child.

“I am already paying school fees and related expenses for five children, which is financially unsustainable. I am being unfairly penalised for a child I did not father, and for whom I never accepted parental responsibility, at least not before the court compelled me to,” he argued.

However, the woman, in her response at the lower court, claimed they began a romantic relationship in 2010, when the child was three years old.

She said the man willingly took on a fatherly role, including enrolling the child in school and listing himself as the emergency contact.

She admitted he is not the biological father, but insisted he voluntarily took up parental responsibilities.

She added that in 2015, she gave birth to their child together. She also claimed that he had personally insisted on being officially recognised as the father of both children, even making this known to her extended family.

She claims he applied in 2016 to have his name formalised on the birth certificate and is now seeking Sh76,222 in child support.

The businessman revealed his monthly income is Sh80,000 and expenses leave him Sh20,000 short. He has offered Sh20,000 for school fees and Sh10,000 for maintenance.

Principal Magistrate Elizabeth Muiru found that, while the biological paternity is not disputed, it remains uncertain whether he formally assumed parental responsibility for VK. She ruled that the expungement issue must await the main hearing, but upheld his maintenance obligation, ordering him to pay Sh37,637 within 30 days, warning of a possible arrest warrant if he defaults.