https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12907

RIAS v DMK (Adoption Cause 4 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 12907 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12907 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Meru Adoption Cause 4 of 2020 HM Nyaga, J August 5, 2026 Between RIAS Applicant and DMK Respondent Ruling 1.Coming up for determination is the undated application filed on 24th March 2025 which seeks the following orders:1)Spent.2)That pending hearing and determination of the main suit and or further orders of the honorable court the court grants a Revocation of the Adoption Order made on the 4/2/2021 for Baby AK place the child with Ripples International and cause the Registrar of Adoptions to strike the name of the subject off the Adopters Register. 2.The application is propped by the grounds set out on its face and is supported by an undated affidavit also filed on 24th March 2025. 3.In a nutshell, the applicant describes itself as a registered Christian Trust committed to the protection and promotion of children’s rights. 4.It was averred that on 2nd April 2021, the respondent was granted an adoption order in respect to the subject herein. That following the said order the subject has undergone a lot of neglect and abuse in the hands of the respondent. That things came to ahead when teachers at [Particulars Withheld] school reported a case of abuse and neglect to the applicant. That upon investigations it was discovered that the respondent was of unsound mind and could not take adequate responsibility over the welfare of the child, the subject herein. 5.It is thus the applicant’s prayer that the adoption order issued herein be revoked and the Registrar of Adoptions be ordered to strike off the name of the subject off the Adoption Register. 6.Accompanying the application was an undated plaint that sought the following prayers:i)An order to revoke the adoption order made on the 04/02/2021 for the respondent.ii)An order directed at the Registrar of Adoptions to strike off the name of the subject from the Adoption s Register.iii)An order to release the subject of the custody of Ripples Internationaliv)That the honourable court be pleased to make such further order (s) a s it may deem fit in the circumstances to grant. 7.The respondent filed a response, vide a defence in which she denied all the allegations levelled against her. 8.The respondent terms the applicant’s assertions as unfounded since the latter has no authority to make enquires about people’s mental status in their abdication of parental responsibilities. 9.When the application came up for directions, the court directed the Children Officer Meru County to prepare a report on the child and the respondent, which report was duly filed and I will refer to it shortly. 10.The first issue that needs to be considered is whether there are good grounds to revoke the adoption order. 11.An adoption order is not just any other order. It is a lifelong legal bond between the adopting parent and the child. 12.Section 190 of the Children Act provides for review of adoption orders. It provides as follows:Review of adoption.(1)A person who is a biological parent of a child in respect of whom an adoption order has been granted by a Court may apply to the Court for review of the order for adoption on grounds that—(a)the child in respect of whom an adoption order has been granted by a Court was lost or abducted;(b)the biological parent reported to the Secretary and took all measures to trace, to find and to reunite with the child and were not successful; and(c)it is in best interest of child to reunite with the child with their biological parent.(2)Where the court is satisfied with the grounds under subsection (1), the court may—(a)issue an order to revoke the adoption order and give custody of the child to the biological parent; or(b)review an existing order to give joint custody to a biological parent and an adoptive parent(3)A court may give an order for joint custody where—(a)the child has been in the custody of the adoptive parents for more than five years; and(b)the child expresses that he or she would wish to maintain a relationship with the adoptive parents. 13.It is clear that the circumstances envisaged under the said section are not similar to the present case and I will give my reasons. 14.Prior to the adoption order being issued, the respondent was vetted by the applicant itself, which recommended the adoption. The Children Office also found the respondent to be fit. The documentation that she presented was subjected to scrutiny by the applicant, the Children Officer and the court. 15.From the documents that were availed before the court, it is apparent that the respondent developed psychiatric issues that were noted after the adoption order was issued. 16.The respondent informed the court that her mental issues began quite a while back arising out of stigmatization by her relatives. The cause and the details thereof cannot be laid bare in this ruling, out of respect for her privacy. 17.What emerges from the history of the respondent is a picture of an individual who has a broken relationship with most of her immediate family members. 18.The respondent has admitted that she has been undergoing treatment and therapy for her condition which was diagnosed to be bipolar syndrome. 19.Is that diagnosis of the applicant sufficient to revoke the adaption order? 20.The children officer thinks that the respondent failed to give vital information herself during the vetting process but this is not really proven. The same officer had vetted her and found her fit to adopt the child. 21.The Children Act does not have a provision for revocation of adoption orders other than those provided under section 190 thereof. This position was confirmed in the MK (formerly OMN) 2024 KEHC 2518 (KLR) where the High Court held as follows:“The Children Act No. 29 of 2022 provides for review of adoption orders in section 190 and variation of adoption orders, the purpose of a variation being to correct a defect in the particulars contained therein and in instances whereby an adoption order is quashed or an appeal against an adoption order is allowed, in section 199 of the said Act. There is otherwise no provision for the reversal or revocation of an adoption order.In the instant application, the applicant has urged this court to revoke the adoption order on the basis that there exists exceptional circumstances. There is no doubt that under the Children Act, 2001 and the Children (Adoption) Regulations, that there is no provision for revocation or the setting aside of an adoption order once given. It would appear that the law envisaged for the adoption order to be interfered with, only on Appeal. Section 167 of the Children Act, (Revised Edition) 2012 [2010] provides as follows:“Any person aggrieved by the making or refusal to make of an adoption order or order pertaining to parental responsibility for a child may appeal therefrom in the same manner as if the application were a suit instituted under the Civil Procedure Act (Cap.21 L.O.K).”The effect of an adoption order under the children Act is that all rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of the biological parents as concerns the child are extinguished and are transferred and placed in the hands of the adoptive parent(s) who shall deal with the child as if it was born to them (him or her).” 22.That said, the court has power to intervene where for instance, there was fraud, procedural irregularity or mistake when the adoption order was issued. The application does not cite any such circumstances. Rather if it is hinged on discovery of alleged instability of the respondent’s mind. That in view is not really a ground envisaged by the law to warrant on revocation of an adoption orders. 23.An adoptive parent, once granted an adoption order, barring the circumstances that I have given, becomes just like a biological parent. If a biological parent suffers from a mental disorder the result is not to declare him/her unfit and take away the child. The court or any other institution, should take steps to protect the child in line with Article 53 of the Constitution and section 8 of the Children Act. 24.The court is also mindful of the consequences of a revocation of the adoption order. Section 205 of the Children Act provides for the right of an adopted child upon the demise of the adopted parent as follows:Intestacies and testamentary instruments(1)Where at any time after the making of an adoption order the adopter or the adopted child or any other person dies intestate in respect of any movable or immovable property, the property shall devolve in all respects as if the adopted child were a biological child of the adopter.(2)The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply to any property which is subject to a settlement or an entailed interest under a disposition made before the date of the adoption order in accordance with the law of succession.(3)In any disposition of movable or immovable property made, whether by instrument inter vivos or by will, including a codicil, at the date of an adoption order—(a)any reference, whether express or implied, to the child or children of the adopter shall be construed as, or as including, a reference to the adopted child;(b)any reference, whether express or implied, to the child or children of the adopted child’s natural parents or either of them shall be construed as not being or as not including, a reference to the adopted child; and(c)any reference, whether express or implied, to a person related to the adopted child in any degree shall be construed as a reference to the person who would be related to him or her in that degree if he or she were the child of the adopter. 25.A revocation of the adoption order would thus be more prejudicial to the child than it benefits her. This is contrary to the principles set out vide Article 53 of the Constitution and section 8 of the Children Act. 26.In my view, the correct way to deal with the matter is to cease to treat the respondent as a villain. This is an individual in need of every support that can come her way. This application does not help her or the subject in any way. 27.If anything, this application only adds salt to the wounds on the respondent and the child. So, what is the way forward? 28.I am of the opinion that the best way is to let the respondent receive appropriate treatment /therapy so that she can get back to her feet again. If she ever gets well enough to take care of her child, then there should be no issue with her doing so. If she does not, then the child will be treated as a child in need of protection and care, just any child with his/her biological parents. 29.For now, the applicant shall only be allowed supervised access to her child. Hopefully the two traumatized souls can heal together. 30.After considering all the factors, I decline to grant the orders sought. 31.The following orders shall issue:a.The subject shall for now remain sheltered at Ripples International Premises.b.The Children Officer shall monitor the child and facilitate reasonable access for the respondent to the subject.c.The respondent shall continue with her treatment and therapy and provide progress report to the court.d.A date for further directions shall be given.e.There shall be no orders as to costs. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026.H.M. NYAGAJUDGE