Harare Civil Court cases show mothers counting the cost of care while fathers plead thin pockets, leaving magistrates to decide what a child’s welfare is worth.

At the Harare Civil Court this week, the same question kept returning in different voices: Who must carry the bill when mothers say they are overwhelmed and fathers say they cannot afford what is being asked of them.

In case after case, women came to court with the language of daily survival: rent, mealie-meal, uniforms, school fees, clinic money, transport and clothing and pitched their ask quite high.

Men responded with the language of limited income: unemployment, low salaries, other children, new families and expenses they said had already swallowed their earnings, and responded with minimal offers.

The magistrates were left to do what family courts do every day, force men to face up to their parental responsibility while trimming women’s expectations.

The amounts before the court ranged from US$20 to US$700.

But according to ZimStat’s poverty datum line, the Total Consumption Poverty Line for one person was recently around US$50 per month. That figure is a minimum consumption benchmark covering food and essential non-food needs.

Against that standard, some of the fathers’ offers were ridiculous. One Junior Zindau applied to reduce maintenance for his two-year-old child from US$60 to US$20 per month.

“The reason why I am not able to pay US$60 is because I am no longer working so I can’t afford it,” he told the court.

The magistrate dismissed the application, ruling that it had no merit and that US$20 was insufficient to cater for the needs of a child leaving the existing US$60 order remained in force.

In another case, Midlands State University media student Felistas Tavarera sought US$280 per month from Nigel Moyo for the upkeep of their three-year-old child.

Tavarera told the court she survives on a student employment programme that pays her US$40 per month.

She said Moyo, a soldier earning a monthly salary, was in a better position to contribute towards the child’s welfare. Her claim covered food, clothing and school-related expenses.

Moyo denied refusing to support the child, but said he disagreed with enrolling the child in school at the current age. Moyo was ordered to pay US$60 per month, or the equivalent in ZiG, towards the maintenance of the child until the age of 18. The court also ruled that he would be responsible for school fees once the child is formally enrolled.

In another matter, Grace Tavanenzi sought US$700 for the upkeep of her three children aged 17, 15 and 11. She told the court she survives on about US$200 per month from a small business and needed assistance with food, rent, school fees, uniforms and clothing.

The children’s father, Edmore Mandizvidza, said he could only afford US$60. He told the court he earned about US$350 per month as a driver and was also supporting another family.

The magistrate ordered Mandizvidza to continue paying school fees directly to the school and to contribute US$60 per child every month towards upkeep, starting June 30.

A similar dispute arose between Irene Chirikuvana and Tashinga Paradza. Chirikuvana sought US$300 for the upkeep of their two children aged 13 and nine. She told the court she earns about US$150 as an agent and needed help with food, clothing, rent and school fees.

Paradza said he could only offer US$50. The magistrate postponed the matter to Thursday and directed both parties to bring school fees invoices before a final determination is made.

In another case, Monalisa Charamba sought US$135 for the upkeep of one child. She told the court she earns about US$120 per month selling at a bottle store and needed support for food, rent, clothing and medical expenses. The child’s father, Farai Rukweza, a mechanic, said he could only afford US$30 because he was also supporting three other children.

The magistrate ordered him to pay US$50 per month, or the equivalent in local currency, with effect from June 30.

Taken together, the cases show that maintenance court is a place where the private cost of parenting meets public reality.

The mothers’ claims show what they believe it now costs to raise children with dignity. The fathers’ offers show what many men believe they can realistically pay or are prepared to pay.

Outside court, one of the men said that he had no issue with looking after his kid. But he felt that the mother was expecting him to fund her own lifestyle. Another woman said it was only fair that the father pays more as she is the primary care giver and that interferes with her ability to earn money. Several organisations including IMF and World Bank list unpaid labour as an economic gender-based handicap to women’s empowerment.

Between those two positions stands the child.

A child does not eat according to whether the father is employed. A child does not stop needing shoes because the mother is studying. A child does not postpone illness because parents are no longer together.

The Constitution says a child’s best interests are paramount in every matter concerning the child.

If mothers are overwhelmed and fathers say they cannot pay, the question becomes unavoidable: who takes care of the child?

The court’s answer is consistent: Both parents may have financial problems. Both may have grievances. Both may feel the other is unreasonable. But the child cannot be the one left to absorb the shortfall.