Across staffrooms in towns and rural centres in Kenya, a quiet anxiety circulates among some male teachers. It is not about lesson plans, promotions, or transfers.
It is about court summons, maintenance orders, and salary deductions. It is about how relationships that once seemed harmless or hopeful sometimes evolve into legal obligations that follow them for years.
The conversation is uncomfortable. It is emotional. It is deeply personal. Yet it is happening — and it deserves a sober, balanced examination.
Let us begin with the law.
Under the Children Act, every child has a right to parental care and protection. If a man is established or presumed to be a father, the court can order him to provide maintenance. That maintenance may cover food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical care. The law’s primary focus is the welfare of the child — not the feelings of the adults involved.
This principle is reinforced by the Constitution of Kenya, which places the best interests of the child above all other considerations in matters concerning children.
In practice, this means that once paternity is acknowledged or proven, responsibility follows.
But how do some male teachers find themselves claiming they were “enticed into a trap”?
The Stability Factor
Teachers occupy a unique position in society. They are:
Salaried.
Traceable.
Professionally regulated.
Seen as responsible and stable.
Unlike informal workers, whose income may fluctuate or be difficult to verify, teachers’ earnings are documented and predictable. In maintenance proceedings, courts assess the ability to pay. A steady salary makes calculation straightforward.
This visibility can create vulnerability. In disputes over paternity or upkeep, a salaried professional is easier to pursue legally than someone without documented income.
Yet financial visibility alone does not create a trap. The deeper issue often lies in how relationships unfold.
When Relationships Blur Responsibility
Many disputes begin with informal relationships — friendships, romantic engagements, or casual encounters. Expectations are rarely written down. Promises may be verbal. Boundaries may be unclear.
When pregnancy is announced, reactions differ.
Some men accept responsibility immediately, sometimes out of love, sometimes out of pressure, sometimes out of fear of reputational damage. A teacher, respected in the community, may worry about public embarrassment more than a private citizen would.
In rural settings, especially, refusing responsibility can attract social stigma. Word travels quickly. The teacher’s image — both professional and moral — may feel at stake.
In some instances, maintenance begins voluntarily. No court. No DNA test. Just trust.
Months or years later, doubt may surface.
That doubt is what fuels the narrative of enticement.
The Role of Social Pressure
In many communities, fatherhood is not just biological; it is moral. A man who seems to deny responsibility risks being labelled irresponsible. Some male teachers report feeling cornered by:
Community elders.
Religious leaders.
Family pressure.
Threats of public humiliation.
Fear of complaints reaching their employer.
To protect their reputation, some sign agreements or consent to maintenance without legal advice. Once signed, those agreements become enforceable.
At that point, the matter moves from social dispute to legal obligation.
The Legal Reality
Contrary to common belief, courts do not issue maintenance orders blindly. A claim must be filed. Evidence must be presented. A man has the right to respond. He can:
Deny paternity.
Request DNA testing.
Seek legal representation.
Challenge the amount requested.
Apply for variation if circumstances change.
The modern Kenyan court increasingly relies on scientific evidence in contested paternity cases. DNA testing is admissible and decisive. Where paternity is disproven, maintenance cannot stand.
READ ALSO:
A roof is not enough: The true meaning of Affordable Housing
The real danger arises when men fail to appear in court. Non-attendance can result in default orders. Salary attachments may follow. By the time realisation dawns, deductions may already be underway.
Is It a Trap — or a Failure of Due Process?
The word “trap” is emotionally charged. It suggests deliberate deception.
While deception does occur in some instances, it is equally true that many maintenance cases are legitimate. Many women seek support for children whose paternity is not in doubt. Many men willingly and responsibly provide care without dispute.
The problem arises in the grey areas — where:
Paternity is assumed but not verified.
Emotions override caution.
Agreements are signed under pressure.
Legal advice is not sought.
Silence replaces defence.
In those situations, what feels like enticement may actually be a failure to exercise legal rights early.
The Financial Impact
For a teacher earning a modest salary, maintenance deductions can be significant. When multiple claims arise, the burden intensifies. The emotional strain can affect classroom performance, morale, and mental well-being.
Yet the law’s position remains consistent: if you are the father, you are responsible.
The system is designed to prevent children from suffering due to adult conflict. It is not structured to punish men. It is structured to secure child welfare.
But systems can be misused.
False claims, if proven, erode trust and harm genuine cases. They also damage reputations and financial stability. That is why evidence-based adjudication is critical.
The Professional Dimension
Teachers are public servants. Allegations of neglecting parental responsibility can affect career progression. Even unproven rumors can circulate widely in school communities.
Some male teachers report paying upkeep quietly to avoid disciplinary scrutiny or reputational damage. Silence becomes a shield — but also a long-term financial commitment.
Professional associations and unions could play a stronger role in legal literacy, advising members to:
Never ignore a court summons.
Never sign maintenance agreements without counsel.
Request DNA testing where doubt exists.
Keep documentation of all payments.
Seek mediation before escalation.
Prevention, Not Blame
Framing the issue as women “trapping” men risks inflaming gender hostility. That approach does not solve the problem. It polarizes it.
A more responsible path focuses on:
Informed decision-making.
Legal awareness.
Responsible relationships.
Early verification.
Respectful co-parenting where applicable.
Both men and women can act in bad faith. Both can act responsibly. Generalization helps no one.
The Central Principle: The Child
At the heart of every maintenance dispute is a child — often voiceless, dependent, and innocent of adult conflict.
The law prioritizes that child’s survival and dignity. Even where adults feel wronged, the court’s lens remains fixed on the minor’s welfare.
Therefore, the solution lies not in fear or suspicion, but in clarity and due process.
A Call for Maturity
Male teachers — and indeed all professionals — must recognize that adulthood carries responsibility. Relationships have consequences. Ignorance of the law offers no protection.
At the same time, the justice system must continue strengthening safeguards against misuse. Swift DNA testing, fair hearings, and balanced orders protect both children and alleged fathers.
Trust should never replace verification in matters with lifelong consequences.
And silence should never replace informed action.
In the end, this is not a story about men versus women. It is a story about law, responsibility, reputation, and the delicate line between emotion and evidence.
Where clarity exists, conflict reduces.
Where evidence leads, fairness prevails.
And where maturity governs relationships, “traps” lose their power.
By Hillary Muhalya
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
