Zimpapers Logo

Ruth Butaumocho Gender Forum
Last week signalled a temporary impasse in the Alick Macheso/Fortune Mapako maintenance saga that had been raging in the courts for a couple of weeks. The case of the two did not only create enough media blaze but also generated debate while giving people an insight into the trials and tribulations couples go through just to outdo each other, when they should be focusing on the welfare of their children.

For many, the Macheso/Tafadzwa maintenance case was also a lesson to men and women who rely on marriage for sustenance and survival that they should be self-reliant and be able to chip in financially in the event that dynamics of the relationship change.

Having assessed demands from both parties, the court ordered the sungura artiste to pay US$1 030 in maintenance, a drastic reduction from what Tafadzwa had demanded. Whether Tafadzwa deserved more or less is neither here nor there, the important thing is she now has a fall-back position, while the two wait to undergo paternity tests to ascertain whether Macheso is indeed the biological father of Tafadzwa’s two children.

True to the virtues of the law, Tafadzwa did not walk away empty-handed, but she got a temporary respite, while the courts await results of the paternity tests.

She joins hundreds of men and women who have to rely on the law to force their partners to contribute to the welfare of their children.
During the same time last week, we reported elsewhere in this publication that the courts in Zimbabwe last year received over 6 000 court applications from men who applied for downward variations of maintenance claims citing various reasons, mainly economic.

There were also others who wanted downward variations at the request of a new partner, arguing that “maintaining” their own children was denting their new relations, further straining the financial resources the “madame”, or “sir” should be enjoying.

The above two scenarios painted a glaring, but crude picture of what people go through to force their partners to care for the upkeep of the children they sired together, once a relationship, union or marriage breaks down.

Parenting is and will always remain a shared responsibility between partners, based on a number of factors, with the economy considered to be the main one. Child maintenance that was once regarded as “respite for single mothers” can make a significant difference to a child’s well-being and the quality of family relationships. A parent who does not live with their child still has a financial responsibility for the child so that life becomes bearable for the one who is giving shelter, food, moral as well as financial support for the same child.

Both parents play equally important roles in childbearing and that a father’s time with his children is equally critical for their development in as much as his financial contribution is.

In fact, I consider the level of a man’s involvement with his children to be a measure of his manhood.
A father’s rights to his children are as sacred as a mother’s, and I see no reason why men fail to own up to their role of caring for the family, be it financially, morally or otherwise.

However, instead of sharing this responsibility, the battle for child custody and child maintenance becomes a form of punishment where women use custody to extract financial gains, while on the other hand, men withhold financial assistance to “cheapen” the woman and make her beg for assistance for the upkeep of the children.

If anything this behaviour smacks of cheap animosity, hate and social politics between the two and is detrimental to the well-being of the children. It is also a clear demonstration that these vindictive women and the cowardly and selfish men, don’t care a dime about the children they agreed, or accidentally sired in their moments of weakness.

It is folly, and sheer malice to drag children into custody and maintenance battles which they were never part of in the first place.
While moral support alone is a crucial aspect of parenting, which requires time and commitment to ensure that kids are comfortable and well taken care of, both partners should also consider chipping in with money to ease the financial burden.

Too many a time, both men and women who apply for maintenance approach the courts, expecting their ex-partners to pay their expenses and that of their children from rentals right up to buying tooth picks!

Once both partners chip in financially the emotional stress is made bearable if both parties make a financial commitment to the maintenance and welfare of their children in the event of loss of employment of the breadwinner and other unforeseeable calamities that might happen.

If Tafadzwa had other means of survival, or an enterprising mother who sells anything from vegetables to airtime, she wouldn’t have demanded US$7 000, but would have chipped in.

Or better still, she would have been a bit modest in her demands, fully aware that she would be expected to contribute financially apart from caring for the kids morally.

It is quite honourable for men to contribute wholesomely to the upkeep of their children, but women should also begin to look at ways to lessen the financial burden by coming up with small projects to ensure that children are well looked after even after a man loses his job or even dies.
Looking after children is a shared responsibility.