Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1149688,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1149688/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 760,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba North, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Odhiambo-Mabona",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 376,
        "legal_name": "Millie Grace Akoth Odhiambo Mabona",
        "slug": "millie-odhiambo-mabona"
    },
    "content": "“(2) Where a custody order is made giving custody of a child to one parent, or in the case of joint guardians, to one guardian, the court may order that the person not awarded custody shall nevertheless have all or any rights and duties in relation to a child other than the right to actual possession, jointly with a person who is given custody of the child. In sub-clause 1, I am proposing that we insert the words “taking into account the child’s evolving capacity” immediately after the word “child”. This section is about the principles that the court would use in making custody orders in relation to a child. In sub-clause (c), it says the court will take into account the ascertainable wishes of the child. However, I am saying that the court should take into account the evolving capacity of the child. A child who is three years old may wish to go with a parent that gives sweets but may not have the best interest of the child. So, even as we are taking the ascertainable wishes of the child, we need to look at the evolving capacity of the child. A child who is three and one who is 17 years have a totally different perceptions in terms of what they want. So, that is my proposal for (c). In sub-clause 2, I am proposing that we delete what is there and provide that where a custody order is made giving custody of a child to one parent, or in the case of joint guardians, to one guardian, the court may order that the person not awarded custody shall nevertheless have all or any rights and duties in relation to a child other than the right to actual possession, jointly with a person who is given custody of the child. So, the fact that you have physical custody does not preclude you from paying fees for instance. So, the physical custody alone does not preclude you from other duties. So, that is what my proposed amendment to sub-clause 2 is about."
}