https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10472

Society v DMK (Adoption Cause 04 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 10472 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10472 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Meru Adoption Cause 04 of 2020 HM Nyaga, J July 9, 2026 Between Ripples International Adoption Society Applicant and DMK Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant has applied for orders for the immediate revocation of adoption order of Baby Ann Kangai. 2.The Applicant filed all the requisite documents, which include the initial adoption order, letter from [Particulars Withheld] primary school, letter from subcounty children officer seeking assistance from Ripples international among other documents listed in their list of documents. 3.The Sub-County Children’s Officer filed an investigative report. In a nutshell, the report presents findings on the respondent that contradict the initial vetting, revealing a critical history of severe mental health crises, workplace medical assessments from Meru University of Science and Technology indicating impaired capacity, and documented non-disclosure of medical condition during the primary adoption process. 4.The respondent has lived with the Minor since the adoption order was initially processed in 2020. However, recent filings from [Particulars Withheld] Primary School and a formal report booked at Kambakia Police Station raised severe alarms of child abuse, psychological trauma, chronic neglect, and an instance where the child was abandoned unattended for two weeks. 5.When the parties appeared before me, the Applicant gave an affirmation contesting the safety of the child if returned to the Applicant as the subject is undergoing psychological rehabilitation. 6.Article 53(2) of the Constitution provides as follows regarding matters involving a child:—“A child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child." 7.In addition, Section 8(1) of the Children Act 2022 provides as follows:—“Best interests of the child.(1)In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies—(a)the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration." 8.Section 194(1)(a) of the Children Act requires the court to review, vary, or set aside an adoption order where it is established that such an order was obtained through the non-disclosure of a material fact or fraud, and where changing circumstances dictate that the order no longer serves the child's safety. 9.Section 183 of the Act provides for the finality and effects of an adoption order. However, the protective mandates under Section 199 explicitly empower the court to vary or discharge custody and placement frameworks when an adoptive parent exhibits profound medical incapacity or engages in severe child neglect. 10.The Respondent is currently on a lifelong psychiatric treatment regimen for Bipolar Mood Disorder, as verified by diagnoses from Meru county department of health and second opinion from Kijabe Hospital and Doctor’s plaza Nairobi Hospital. While she demonstrates current compliance, her historical health pattern and workplace assessments rule out her current stability to independently care for a vulnerable child. 11.Having considered the Summons, statements, and Affidavit in support of the application, the investigative reports filed by the Adoption Society and the Sub County Children’s officer and having perused the adverse replying affidavits and statements by the respondent, I am of the view that the respondent currently lacks the practical capacity to provide a safe, stable environment for the child, and that returning the minor would trigger profound psychological trauma. 12.The Applicant, Ripples International Adoption Society, has been found to be emotionally capable, structurally fit, and adequately resourced to temporarily safeguard and care for the child herein. 13.The child needs immediate trauma care, stable parental guidance, food, shelter, education, and clothing. The Applicant has successfully demonstrated that they have the institutional capacity as well as the specialized therapeutic resources to raise the child in a loving, safe environment. 14.The Respondent had previously proposed JMK to be appointed the legal guardian to the child. The report filed herein indicates that while the proposed guardian understands his role, he failed to disclose the Respondent's prior admissions to Mathari Hospital during the vetting phase, compromising his recommendation. 15.It is therefore, in my opinion, in the best interest of the child, that the Applicant's request for the revocation of the adoption order be allowed, and the child be committed to institutional safe care. 16.Therefore, I make the following orders:i.That the application by Ripples International Adoption Society seeking the revocation of the adoption order of Baby AK be and is hereby Allowed.ii.That the minor, Baby AK, be and is hereby placed under the legal and physical custody of Ripples International Adoption Society under a formal Care and Protection Order.iii.That the order appointing JMK as the legal guardian is hereby Revoked.iv.That the Sub-County Children’s Officer is hereby directed to conduct monthly welfare assessments of the minor at the care facility and file progress updates to this Court. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.H.M NYAGAJUDGE