By OLUSOJI DAOMI
There is a familiar story playing out quietly in many Nigerian homes. A relationship breaks down. The father walks away or becomes distant. The mother is left to shoulder the burden of feeding, clothing, educating and caring for the children. Frustration sets in. Friends gather around with advice. Someone says, “Take him to court. The judge will make him pay.” Another assures her that once she files a case, the father will be compelled to start paying huge sums every month.
It sounds comforting. It also sounds simple.
But the law is rarely as simple as the conversations that take place in salons, churches, markets, beer parlours or on social media.
Many Nigerians assume that a child support case is like ordering food in a restaurant. You ask for a certain amount, the court grants it, and the matter ends there. Unfortunately, that is not how the law works.
This is where many people become disappointed. They approach the court with expectations created by rumours rather than by legal reality. When the judgment eventually comes, they wonder why the court awarded far less than they demanded.
The first principle every Nigerian should understand is that child support is not intended to punish a father or enrich a mother. It exists for one purpose only. It is to protect the welfare and best interests of the child. Under Nigerian law, the child is the centre of the dispute, not the parents.
That distinction is very important.
The court is not interested in settling scores between two former lovers. It is not a battlefield where past emotional wounds are compensated. The court asks a different question. What arrangement will best provide for this child?
Imagine a familiar situation.
A woman in Ibadan separates from the father of her two children. She earns a modest income selling fabrics in Bodija Market. The children’s father works as a security supervisor in Lagos.
For several months, he contributes almost nothing towards the children’s upkeep. School fees accumulate. Rent is due. One child falls ill. The mother becomes overwhelmed and decides to approach the court demanding two hundred thousand naira every month as child support.
Many people would assume that once the father earns a salary, the court will simply order him to pay the amount requested.
Again, the law says otherwise.
A Nigerian court does not simply ask, “How much does the father earn?” It also asks, “What can he genuinely afford after considering his financial obligations?”
When parents separate, the marriage or relationship may have ended, but parenthood has not.
The court may examine evidence of income where available. It may consider salary, business earnings or other legitimate sources of income. It may also look at necessary living expenses, including accommodation, transportation, feeding and other responsibilities that the law recognises as relevant.
Every case depends on its own facts and evidence. There is no universal mathematical formula that applies to every family. Nigerian courts exercise discretion based on the circumstances before them and, above all, the welfare of the child.
This is one reason lawyers often remind clients that child support cases cannot be decided by emotions alone.
Suppose a father earns three hundred thousand naira monthly. That figure alone tells only part of the story. If credible evidence shows that he has unavoidable financial obligations, the court may take those matters into account when determining what constitutes reasonable maintenance. At the same time, a parent cannot deliberately reduce income or hide assets merely to evade responsibility. Where there is evidence that a parent is concealing wealth or understating earnings, the court is entitled to draw appropriate conclusions from the evidence presented.
Evidence is the lifeblood of litigation.
Many people say, “He is lying. I know he has plenty of money.”
Knowing is one thing.
Proving is another.
Courts decide cases on admissible evidence, not neighbourhood gossip or social media assumptions.
This is where many litigants underestimate what litigation demands. Every allegation must be supported. Every claim must be proved.
Another misconception deserves correction.
Some people imagine that obtaining a child support order automatically solves the problem.
Not necessarily.
A judgment is one thing. Enforcement is another.
If a court orders maintenance and the person ordered to pay deliberately refuses without lawful excuse, the successful party may need to invoke the court’s enforcement procedures. Nigerian law provides mechanisms for enforcing court orders, including proceedings for disobedience of court orders in appropriate cases. However, enforcement itself may involve additional legal steps, time and expense. Litigation does not always end on the day judgment is delivered.
This is why experienced family lawyers often encourage parties, where circumstances permit, to explore dialogue, mediation and negotiated settlement before commencing prolonged litigation.
This should never be misunderstood to mean that a parent should tolerate abandonment or neglect.
Far from it.
Both parents owe legal and moral responsibilities to their children. Parenthood does not end because affection between adults has ended. A father’s duty to support his child does not disappear because the relationship with the child’s mother has broken down. The same applies to a mother where circumstances require her contribution.
The child did not choose the conflict.
The child should not become its greatest victim.
It is equally important to dispel another dangerous misconception that sometimes circulates in public discussions. Some people advise mothers to deny fathers access to their children simply because maintenance has not been paid.
The law approaches these issues with greater caution.
Questions relating to maintenance and questions relating to custody or access are distinct legal issues. While persistent failure to maintain a child may become relevant in custody proceedings depending on the facts, it does not automatically justify denying lawful access in every case. Each situation depends on the child’s welfare, existing court orders and the surrounding circumstances. Parents should be extremely careful before taking unilateral decisions that may themselves violate the law or harm the child emotionally.
Indeed, the child has rights too.
The child has a right to care, protection and, where appropriate and consistent with the child’s welfare, meaningful relationships with both parents.
Perhaps the greatest lesson here is that going to court should not be the first instinct simply because emotions are running high.
Litigation consumes time.
It consumes money.
It consumes emotional energy.
Sometimes, the amount eventually awarded may not justify the financial and emotional cost of years of legal proceedings, particularly where the parties could have reached a reasonable agreement through negotiation or mediation.
This is not an argument against the courts.
The courts remain the ultimate guardians of justice. Where a parent persistently refuses to perform legal responsibilities, judicial intervention may become necessary. Courts exist precisely for such situations.
But wise litigation begins with informed expectations.
No responsible lawyer should promise that every child support case will produce spectacular financial awards.
The outcome depends on the evidence.
It depends on the financial circumstances of the parties.
It depends on the needs of the child.
It depends on the applicable law.
And above all, it depends on what the court considers to be in the best interests of the child.
There is another lesson that speaks beyond the courtroom.
Children should never become weapons in the wars of adults.
When parents separate, the marriage or relationship may have ended, but parenthood has not. A child should never become the price paid for the collapse of adult relationships. Every father who is able should support his children willingly, not because a judge compelled him to do so but because conscience demands it. Every mother should remember that seeking maintenance is not about defeating the father but about securing the future of the child.
The law can compel compliance.
It cannot manufacture love.
It cannot replace responsible parenting.
And perhaps that is the deepest lesson of all. A society where fathers voluntarily care for their children and mothers are not forced to chase justice from one courtroom to another is not merely a society governed by law. It is a society governed by responsibility, compassion and conscience. The courtroom should be the last refuge of failed parenthood, not its starting point.
READ ALSO:
NFAF to field teams at 2026 NFL flag Africa continental championship
Boiling Point: Experts to discuss why many journalists fail as reputation managers
Lagos, ACCI share perspectives on economic recovery at WorldStage Forum
2026 World Cup: Belgium stun Senegal 3-2 with late comeback
Alleged scam: Presidency says Gbajabiamila’s accuser is an impostor
CBN revokes licenses of 46 microfinance banks (+ Full list)
Real reasons for the reform going on in NYSC –Tinubu
NDLEA takes custody of seized 6,778.5 kg of Canadian Loud
Court sentences driver to death for killing octogenarian, wife
Election timetable: Court reserves judgement in INEC’s appeals
