Let’s be clear – a mother cannot legally deny a biological father custody of his child

The raw, unscripted intensity of the Tinashe Mugabe DNA Show has become a mirror reflecting the complex, often fractured soul of the Zimbabwean family unit.

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

Week after week, thousands of viewers tune in to witness a moment of absolute truth—an envelope is opened, a percentage is read, and a life is permanently altered.

While the show deals with many instances where paternity is disproven, the most legally and socially charged moments occur when the results confirm that the alleged father is indeed the biological parent.

In that instant of confirmation, a predictable but troubling pattern often emerges.

The mother, often moved by a mix of relief, vindication, or long-standing resentment, will look directly into the camera or at the father and declare with unwavering finality that he will never have custody of the child.

This firm stance, though born from a place of deep emotion, is a stark illustration of a pervasive and dangerous misunderstanding of the laws governing child custody and guardianship in modern Zimbabwe.

For many years, a narrative persisted in our communities that the mother of a child born out of wedlock, or upon divorce or separation, held almost monarchical power over that child.

This belief was rooted in old common law principles where the mother was the sole guardian and custodian by default, while the father was viewed as a legal stranger whose only guaranteed connection was a financial one through maintenance payments.

This historical imbalance created a culture where custody was treated as a maternal possession rather than a shared responsibility.

However, the legal architecture of our nation has undergone a radical transformation, leaving this maternal veto in the archives of history.

The defiant “never” we witness on our television screens is a legal fallacy that fails to account for the constitutional and legislative shifts of the last decade.

The foundation of this new era is Section 81 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

This supreme law shifted the focus from parental power to the inherent rights of the child.

It explicitly states that every child has a right to parental care, which includes the right to be cared for by both parents regardless of their marital status.

When a mother on the Tinashe Mugabe DNA Show vows to block a biological father from his child’s life, she is not just challenging an individual man—she is potentially infringing upon a constitutional right that belongs to the child.

The law now recognizes that a child is a rights-holder, and both biological parents are the primary duty-bearers responsible for ensuring those rights are met.

This constitutional principle was given practical teeth by the Guardianship of Minors Amendment Act of 2022.

This legislation was a watershed moment for gender equality and parental responsibility in Zimbabwe.

It effectively dismantled the old hierarchy by mandating that both parents, whether married or not, should exercise their rights of guardianship and custody in consultation with each other.

The law no longer grants an automatic, exclusive throne to the mother simply because she was the one who remained present during a paternity dispute.

Instead, it demands a partnership of responsibility.

The firm refusal to allow a father his place in the child’s life after a positive DNA result is now a direct challenge to the letter and spirit of this 2022 amendment.

When these disputes move from the television studio to the courtroom, the legal standard used is the best interests of the child.

This is the paramount consideration that overrides any personal animosity or history of neglect between the parents.

The court does not view custody as a trophy to be awarded to the “better” parent or as a reward for the mother who raised the child alone.

Instead, the court asks a singular, objective question—what arrangement will best serve the physical, emotional, and psychological development of the child?

A mother’s anger, while perhaps justified by a father’s past denial of paternity or his initial refusal to provide support, is not a legal basis for denying him access or custody once the biological truth is established.

The court’s focus is forward-looking and child-centered, not a retrospective on the failures of the parents’ romantic relationship.

We must also confront the language of “giving” or “refusing” custody that is so prevalent in these public reveals.

In a legal sense, custody is not a piece of property that one parent owns and can choose to gift to another at their convenience.

It is a legal status determined by the state through its judicial arms.

When a mother declares she will never “give” the child to the father, she is speaking from a position of perceived ownership that the law simply does not recognize anymore.

If a biological father approaches the Children’s Court or the High Court and proves he can provide a stable, loving environment, the mother’s personal refusal becomes legally irrelevant.

The court has the power to order joint custody or even transfer sole custody if it is proven that the mother’s obstructionist behavior is detrimental to the child’s welfare.

The emotional intensity of the Tinashe Mugabe DNA Show often stems from the fact that many of these fathers only seek the truth after a long period of abandonment or suspicion.

The mother’s “firm stance” is frequently a protective shield for a child she has nurtured against all odds.

It is entirely understandable that a woman who has carried the full burden of parenting would feel a sense of violation when a man she considers a stranger to the child’s daily life suddenly demands rights.

However, we must separate the father’s past moral failures from the child’s current legal rights.

The law does not use custody as a tool for punishment.

A father who was once a “deadbeat” can, through the legal process of establishing paternity and seeking involvement, be given a chance to reform and contribute meaningfully to his child’s upbringing.

Ultimately, the spectacle of mothers refusing custody on national television highlights a massive gap in legal literacy in Zimbabwe.

We are witnessing a public that is often still operating under the legal rules of a bygone era while living in a modern constitutional reality.

This gap is dangerous because it encourages parents to make promises and threats that lead to expensive, heart-wrenching, and often losing legal battles.

It creates a culture of gatekeeping where children are used as pawns in a struggle for control rather than being seen as individuals with their own set of rights.

Zimbabwe needs a collective shift in mindset.

The conclusion of a paternity test should not be the opening salvo of a war but the beginning of a conversation about co-parenting.

The biological truth revealed on our screens is an invitation to provide a child with a complete identity and a support system that involves both parents.

The “firm stance” of refusal might make for a powerful moment of television, but it stands on shifting sand.

In the eyes of the law, the child’s right to a father is a bridge that cannot be burned by maternal decree alone.

It is time for our social attitudes to catch up with our laws, moving away from a battle of ownership and toward a culture of shared responsibility for the next generation.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08