Bhakita Esther Calls for Men to Pay Child Support Even After DNA Tests Disprove Paternity

Content creator Bhakita Esther has sparked debate after calling for men to remain legally responsible for child support even when DNA tests establish that they are not the biological fathers of the children they have been raising.

Her remarks come amid the controversy surrounding musician Stevo Simple Boy’s DNA test, which has reignited conversations about paternity, parental responsibility and the financial obligations of men raising children.

Bhakita argued that Kenya should adopt rules similar to what she believes applies in the United States, where signing a child’s birth certificate could have lasting legal and financial consequences for a man, even if subsequent DNA results disprove biological paternity.

In a statement, she insisted that men who voluntarily sign birth certificates should be required to provide financial support until the children turn 18.

“We should have rules like in the USA, as long as your name appears on the birth certificate, that child is legally yours, even if DNA proves otherwise. If you signed it, you must pay child support until they are 18. No exemptions!!” she said.

Bhakita argues birth certificates should carry responsibility

Bhakita’s proposal centres on the belief that signing a child’s birth certificate should carry legal obligations that cannot automatically be overturned by a subsequent DNA test.

Her position suggests that men who formally acknowledge children should be held accountable for that decision, regardless of what later paternity results reveal.

The content creator’s remarks have added to the wider debate over whether biological parenthood should be the sole determinant of financial responsibility or whether legal recognition and the child’s welfare should also be considered.

Supporters of continued financial responsibility may argue that such an approach would protect children from losing financial support when paternity disputes emerge.

However, the proposal also raises questions about fairness to men who may have signed birth certificates believing they were the biological fathers, only to discover otherwise through DNA testing.

The debate highlights the competing interests involved in paternity disputes, particularly the need to protect children from financial instability while ensuring that legal obligations are determined fairly.

Stevo Simple Boy’s DNA controversy reignites debate

The discussion comes against the backdrop of the controversy involving Stevo Simple Boy and questions surrounding paternity.

The issue has drawn attention to the emotional and financial consequences of DNA testing, especially when results challenge long-held beliefs about biological parenthood.

Such disputes can affect not only the adults involved but also children who depend on them for financial support, care and stability.

Bhakita’s proposal prioritises continuity of support, arguing that children should not automatically lose financial security because DNA results change the understanding of their biological parentage.

Her remarks have also prompted broader questions about whether a person’s established role as a parent should carry weight independent of biological ties.

Could Kenya adopt such a law?

Bhakita’s comments have raised questions about how Kenya should handle birth registration, paternity disputes and child maintenance obligations.

However, her description of American law is a generalisation. In the United States, the legal consequences of signing a birth certificate vary by state and individual circumstances. DNA results do not automatically resolve every question of legal parentage or child support.

In Kenya, parental responsibility and child maintenance are determined by the applicable law and the circumstances of each case. Signing a birth certificate does not necessarily settle every legal question concerning paternity or maintenance.

Bhakita’s remarks therefore represent her proposed approach to the issue rather than a blanket rule established in either country.

The debate ultimately raises a difficult question for policymakers: how can the law protect children’s welfare and financial stability while ensuring fairness when biological parenthood is disputed?