The family dispute involving Sky Victor, the daughter of late Kenyan gospel musician Betty Bayo, has taken an emotional turn after a court granted her biological father, preacher Victor Kanyari, custody of her and her brother, Danny. The ruling has left the siblings facing the prospect of leaving the home where they lived with their mother and her husband, Hiram Gitau, popularly known as Tash. Sky has made an emotional public appeal, expressing her unwillingness to move in with her biological father and pleading to remain where her mother left her and her brother. Her statements have drawn attention to the emotional challenges children can experience after losing a parent, especially when disagreements arise over their future care. The situation has also raised questions about parental responsibility, children’s wishes and the role of the courts in determining what arrangements best protect minors following the death of a parent.
Sky and Danny are the biological children of Victor Kanyari and Betty Bayo, who were married before their relationship ended. Following their separation, Bayo later married Tash in 2021, and the couple lived together with the two children. Over time, Tash became part of the children’s home environment, where they continued living with their mother. However, Bayo’s death in November 2025 changed the family’s circumstances and left the children facing the loss of a parent. Since her death, the siblings have been living with Tash, but Kanyari has sought to have them move into his care, arguing that their current circumstances have raised concerns about their upbringing.
Kanyari initiated legal proceedings to secure custody of his children, and the court subsequently granted him custody, according to the account of the dispute. The decision has placed the siblings in a difficult position as they continue to grieve their mother’s death while facing a major change in their living arrangements. Although Kanyari is their biological father, Sky’s public statements indicate that she and Danny are reluctant to leave the home they shared with their mother and Tash. Their reaction highlights the difference that can exist between a parent’s legal rights and a child’s emotional readiness to accept a change in care. The circumstances have also brought renewed attention to the challenges families face when grief, parental disagreements and legal decisions intersect.
Sky’s distress became particularly clear during a Facebook livestream in which she made an emotional plea about the possibility of being removed from her current home. She said, “If you’re going to take me from this house, please take me where mum is,” expressing the depth of her pain following her mother’s death. She went on to say that she wanted to be with her mother in heaven rather than move to her father’s home. Her repeated declaration that she refused to go with Kanyari conveyed the intensity of her feelings about the proposed relocation. The remarks suggest that the prospect of leaving her familiar surroundings has become an additional source of distress during an already painful period in her life.
Sky also explained that her appeal was not only about her own wishes but also about the emotional state of her younger brother. She said she was speaking up for Danny because watching him cry had been painful for her. The teenager pleaded for the siblings to remain in the home where their mother had left them, emphasizing that staying there was what they wanted. Her statements portray two children struggling to cope with bereavement while facing uncertainty about where they will live next. For children who have recently lost a parent, the prospect of leaving familiar surroundings can add to feelings of insecurity, particularly when those surroundings are closely connected to memories of the deceased parent.
The disagreement has also placed Tash at the centre of a sensitive family situation. As Bayo’s husband at the time of her death, he shared a home with the children and their mother, making the household an important part of their recent family life. Sky’s appeal indicates that she wants to continue living with him rather than move to Kanyari’s home. However, the available account does not establish all the legal arguments presented by the parties, the full reasoning behind the court’s decision or whether further legal steps are planned. These details matter because custody disputes involve more than the public statements made by family members. The court’s order, the children’s welfare and any applicable legal safeguards must all be considered when assessing what happens next.
The situation has prompted wider discussion about children’s rights and the importance of considering their emotional needs during custody proceedings. Losing a parent can disrupt a child’s sense of security, routine and family identity, even when other relatives or caregivers are available to provide support. A sudden change in living arrangements may be particularly difficult when children are still processing grief and have strong attachments to the home in which they lived with their deceased parent. Their preferences can provide important insight into their emotional needs, although a child’s wishes are not necessarily the only factor that determines a custody decision. Courts generally need to consider the child’s best interests alongside the relevant legal requirements and the circumstances of each case.
The claim that Section 34 of Kenya’s Children Act automatically prioritises a surviving biological parent after the death of the other parent also requires careful consideration. Parental responsibility under Kenyan law is governed by statutory provisions, and a surviving parent’s position must be understood within the wider legal framework concerning children’s welfare and parental responsibility. The existence of a biological relationship does not, by itself, explain every aspect of a custody decision or remove the need to consider the child’s best interests. The precise legal basis for the ruling in Kanyari’s case cannot be established from the information provided alone. It would therefore be inappropriate to conclude that the court’s decision rests solely on an automatic preference for a biological parent without examining the applicable provisions and the details of the proceedings.
Sky’s emotional appeal also highlights the importance of providing children with appropriate support after the death of a parent. Grief can affect children differently depending on their age, relationships and understanding of the loss. Some may express their pain through crying or anger, while others may withdraw or struggle to accept changes in their daily lives. In Sky’s case, her statements about wanting to be with her mother in heaven should be taken seriously as an expression of profound distress, rather than dismissed as ordinary frustration over a custody disagreement. Her emotional well-being and Danny’s adjustment deserve careful attention from the responsible adults and professionals involved in their care.
The dispute involving Sky Victor, Danny, Victor Kanyari and Tash remains a sensitive family matter shaped by bereavement, parental responsibility and the children’s expressed wishes. While the court has granted Kanyari custody according to the account of the ruling, Sky’s public appeal shows that the siblings are struggling with the prospect of leaving their current home. Their situation underscores the need to balance legal responsibilities with children’s emotional security, especially after the loss of a parent. Any future decisions about their living arrangements should give proper attention to their welfare, their relationships with the adults in their lives and the support they need to cope with grief. Ultimately, the central concern should be ensuring that Sky and Danny receive stability, protection and compassionate care as they navigate one of the most difficult periods of their lives.
