A 10-year-old girl secretly left her father’s home in the middle of the night, found a phone from a stranger and made her way to CPS after what she described as a miserable life under his care, the High Court has heard.
The dramatic allegations emerged in a bitter custody battle between Lilian Kaitesi and her former partner, Paul Roger Mathias, an American national, over their daughter, Mathias Liliana Florence.
The dispute has its roots in years of legal battles between the couple following the breakdown of their relationship.
In 2018, Kaitesi reported Mathias to police, alleging that he wanted to kill her because she had refused to help him attain Ugandan citizenship. She also claimed that Mathias was an illegal dealer in weapons.
In 2023, Kaitesi went to court seeking custody of their daughter, but in June 2024, the court instructed the couple to share custody of the child.
Under that arrangement, Mathias was to have custody of the child from Sunday afternoon until Thursday morning during school term, while Kaitesi would have custody from Thursday morning until Sunday afternoon.
The court also ordered that Kaitesi be introduced to the child’s school, Galaxy International School, and that holidays be shared between the two parents.
However, Kaitesi later returned to court accusing Mathias of deliberately frustrating the order.
She claimed that despite repeated requests, Mathias had refused to introduce her properly to the school and had denied her access to their daughter.
Kaitesi claimed she had not seen her child from June 2024 until March 8, 2026, when she was called to CPS after the child allegedly escaped from Mathias’ home.
Mathias denied the accusations and told the court that immediately after the 2024 custody order was issued, he presented it to Galaxy International School and found Kaitesi already there.
According to him, a meeting was held involving both parents, the school’s vice principal and the school’s lawyer.
He maintained that he had never instructed the school to deny Kaitesi access to the child and argued that she had always been known at the school even before the order was issued.
Mathias further claimed that Kaitesi often failed to show up when it was time to pick up the child.
He also said he did not know where Kaitesi lived and alleged that she had refused for years to disclose her residential address.
The dispute escalated dramatically after the child fled Mathias’ home in March this year.
Mathias claimed the girl had been disciplined after entering his driver’s quarters and going through the driver’s clothes, contrary to household rules.
As punishment, he temporarily confiscated her tablet computer and cancelled their regular father-daughter outings for 30 days.
Mathias insisted these were ordinary disciplinary measures.
He accused Kaitesi of taking advantage of the situation and helping the child escape.
He told court that on the night of the incident, the child allegedly took keys from his room, opened the doors and ran away.
“There was a boda boda already waiting for her outside the gate which drove her off,” he alleged.
Mathias claimed he suspected that either Kaitesi or her relatives had organised the child’s escape from his home.
But the child told a different story when Justice Celia Nagawa, the presiding judge, personally interviewed her.
She claimed that her father would “beat, slap and kick her,” which led her to eventually flee from his home.
When she was asked how she escaped in the middle of the night, she claimed she borrowed a phone from a stranger and contacted her mother, who advised her to go to CPS.
The child also told court that although she wanted to live with her mother, she still wished to maintain contact with her father.
URA told IHK to pay VAT of Shs 356m on meals it provides patients. Court said no
Justice Nagawa was puzzled after hearing the accounts of all the parties. She was shocked at the scale of the revelations but wondered why no police reports, medical reports, counselling reports or school reports had been produced to independently verify claims of abuse.
She also noted that children caught in relationship disputes between their parents can sometimes be influenced by one parent or the other.
“Children involved in highly contested custody disputes may consciously or unconsciously be influenced, persuaded, coached, or emotionally affected by the conflict between their parents,” she said.
Justice Nagawa said while the child’s allegations were serious, there was insufficient independent evidence to justify completely removing Mathias from her life.
She ruled that Kaitesi had failed to prove that Mathias deliberately disobeyed court orders because evidence showed she had attended the school meeting where the custody order was explained.
She also found no evidence that Mathias had instructed the school to block Kaitesi’s access to their daughter.
“The evidence before court points to a breakdown in communication and coordination between the parties, which substantially affected the practical implementation of the court order,” she said.
Justice Nagawa added that the court could not conclude that Mathias had wilfully disobeyed the custody order.
As a result, the contempt application filed by Kaitesi was dismissed, but the court revised the custody arrangement.
In the meantime, Justice Nagawa said, the child will remain under joint custody of the two parents.
She said Kaitesi will now have custody from Thursday after school until Sunday at 4 pm, while Mathias will have custody from Sunday evening until Thursday morning.
She ruled that the father will continue paying school fees, educational expenses, medical insurance and other major costs.
Justice Nagawa directed both parents to communicate respectfully and provide direct telephone contacts.
