After Reginald Bugeja’s former partner, Charmaine Calleja, denied him access to their daughter, Mr Bugeja was informed that Ms Calleja had started proceedings to adopt the young girl and gain sole custody. He requested the court to nullify the adoption proceedings and register him as the father.

In 1999, Mr Bugeja and Ms Calleja were in a relationship. They had a daughter, but Ms Calleja did not register Mr Bugeja as the father because she said she wanted to collect social benefits.

After they broke up, the mother deprived the father from seeing his daughter.

In 2002, the man officially recognised the girl as his, but was denied access to her because he was informed that his former partner had started adoption procedures and was trying to deny Mr Bugeja his rights as a father.

At the court sitting for the adoption, Ms Calleja said Mr Bugeja had never shown interest in their daughter. The second hall of the Civil Court, where the adoption proceedings were taking place, ruled in favour of the adoption.

In the judgement passed yesterday, the Family Court noted that what Ms Calleja said could not be true. The man had been in the first two years of his daughter’s life (while the couple were still together) and continued to show interest in seeing her even after he was denied access to her. This was shown through greeting cards, photos and letters exhibited in court.

Mr Bugeja’s rights as the girl’s natural father were breached when Ms Calleja tried to adopt the girl behind his back, yesterday’s judgement ruled. The court upheld Mr Bugeja’s request to revoke the adoption and be registered as the girl’s natural father on the birth certificate.

Mr Bugeja had had a drug problem and had also been in prison, but the court ruled these facts were not a valid excuse for him not being informed about the adoption and his voice not being heard.

The court, presided over by Mr Justice Raymond Pace, said adoption is a serious matter because it can cut a child completely off from her natural parents. Ms Calleja abused the adoption system to deny Mr Bugeja’s right as a father. She did this in her best interest and not that of the child, Mr Justice Pace said.

After ruling in favour of Mr Bugeja, in the best interest of the child, the court requested the Police Commissioner to begin investigating Ms Calleja regarding her declaration in the second hall of the Civil Court.

Dr Joanna Vella Cuschieri appeared for Mr Bugeja while Dr Chris Cilia appeared for Ms Calleja.