By Heritage Ehinmowo & Rasaq Akintaju

A Family Child Development Court sitting in Oke-Eda, Akure, has ruled in favour of Mr Kayode Kolapo, who petitioned the court over the alleged denial of access to his children by his estranged wife, Mrs Omobola Olaniyan-Kolapo.

Kolapo informed the court that although he provided for the children’s welfare; including the purchase of mobile phones to enable communication, his wife consistently refused to allow him see or speak with them.

He said, “My wife denies me access to our children even though I provide for their needs beyond the basics and ensure they have mobile phones to reach me.”

Before the latest hearing, a Family Magistrate Court had granted Kolapo access to the children during school holidays, while they remained in their mother’s custody. The case was later referred to the Family Child Development Court for further proceedings.

Counsel to the petitioner, Mr A.D. Afolabi, told the court that the respondent continued to deny Kolapo access to his children, despite the earlier court order.

He presented bank transaction records to demonstrate the financial support provided by the petitioner for the children’s upkeep.

Responding, counsel to the respondent and cross-petitioner, Mr C.T. Fagbohun, maintained that access had been granted to his client (petitioner).

However, Afolabi argued that the respondent had allegedly instructed the children’s school not to accept direct payments or allow contact with their father.

In her ruling, Alero E. Akeredolu, granted the petitioner the right to pay the children’s school fees directly to their school.

She also ordered that the children’s first school holiday be spent with their father, the second term with their mother, and the third shared equally between both parents.

The court further directed that phone communication between the petitioner and the children must be allowed, provided the petitioner pays for data services.

Akeredolu stated that the decision was made in the best interest of the children and to ensure the petitioner remains involved in their lives.