Recent opinions expressed by Miriam Cassar, spokesperson for a local pressure group, in several media raise doubts as to how updated this group is in matters that concern children.
In an interview given to The Malta Independent (12 February), Ms Cassar made reference to the Laws of Malta and to the “draconian measures” contained therein. She went as far as stating that “…men enjoy rights, but have no obligations, not towards their wives, nor towards their children…” and that biological parents “have no duties whatsoever under Maltese law”.
With the introduction of equality between spouses, the responsibility that a parent has towards the family is shared by both the mother and father. In this regard, the Civil Code very clearly states that “…spouses shall assume equal rights and shall assume equal responsibilities during marriage”. They both have the duty to provide for the family and to contribute towards its needs.
Furthermore, our law also provides that both spouses have the obligation “to look after, maintain, instruct and educate the children of the marriage taking into account the abilities, natural inclinations and aspirations of the children”. The Civil Code also states that this obligation rests with the parent of the child (whether married or not) and should a parent not assume these obligations, he or she may be deprived of parental authority over the child. In this regard, Ms Cassar’s comments cannot but baffle a person as to the group’s basic knowledge of the law.
Ms Cassar has also stated that the adoption legislation has not been amended for approximately 45 years. It might be appropriate to bring to her attention that a legal notice was issued in 1995 and another legal notice was issued in 2004 whereby Malta acceded to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption.
Furthermore, as has been stated publicly by Minister Dolores Cristina, amendments to the legislation regulating adoption are underway and currently being finalised. Ms Cassar has also stated that the current law which regulates adoption gives the natural parents “every right to custody”. In reality, the current law speaks of the concept of “care and custody”, which in practice means the actual care of the child on a day to day basis.
Care and custody of a child can be taken away from a parent either by virtue of a care order, whereby the child becomes the responsibility of the minister responsible for social policy, or by order of the Court. With regard to adoption, the Court also has the power to dispense with the consent, which is usually required from the natural parents for the adoption of a child, if there are grounds for such a dispensation.
When referring to foster care, Ms Cassar said that “the law as it stands today can only present a great deal of emotional abuse for them (foster carers) and the children”. It may be opportune to draw Ms Cassar’s attention to the fact that a law regulating foster care is already before Parliament.
One cannot but agree with Ms Cassar on the issue of residential homes, in that they are not the ideal type of homes for children. As much as possible, children should benefit from a family atmosphere, and this was the driving force of government in introducing the Foster Care Act. In addition, in 2001, the then Social Policy Ministry introduced a new fostering service in Agenzija Appogg and the child-in-care benefit for children in residential and foster care.
The investment in the fostering service and the child-in-care benefit left a positive result as in the last five years the number of children in residential homes decreased by 71, equivalent to a 22 per cent decrease, and the number of children in foster care increased by 107, equivalent to a 172 per cent increase. This year’s budget saw a new vote of Lm36,000 to support foster carers who take care of children with challenging behaviour or with special needs and who are under a care order. This support is part of a care plan for each child and includes the payment of medical, therapeutic, leisure and educational activities.
Having said this, one cannot but acknowledge the sterling work being done by our residential homes and the dedication and commitment with which the children living there are being cared for. While society is now mature enough to be looking beyond institutional support for these children, let us not forget that were it not for the generosity and foresight of Church homes, many children would have suffered tremendously in the past.
With regard to children living in residential homes, Ms Cassar once again makes an unsupported statement in that she says that “some parents whose children live at St Patrick’s home for boys do not pay a penny for their children’s upbringing, so the children’s allowance is being abused of in such cases”. This is an irresponsible statement on Ms Cassar’s behalf. Had she bothered to enquire into the veracity of this, she would have been informed that parents whose children are living in residential homes stop receiving the children’s allowance.
Other statements made by Ms Cassar also give rise to concern. A case in point is where, albeit her claiming to represent a parental pressure group, she then declares that with respect to young persons frequenting places of entertainment in the evening, “parents have their hands tied because of peer pressure”.
It is worrying, to say the least, that Ms Cassar seems to be stating that parents can only cope with peer pressure if legislation is in place. This is not to say that legislation is not an added tool. Quite the contrary, and this is evidenced clearly by the government’s commitment including that of regulating the consumption of alcohol by persons under the age of 16.
Ms Cassar may also be interested to know that legislation is already in place to prevent persons under the age of 16 from entering places of entertainment. This, irrespective of the time of day or night. Having said this, with all due respect to Ms Cassar, while parents undoubtedly do not have an easy job on their hands, parents must be parents of their children, and yes, this also implies learning to say no and sticking to it. The government undoubtedly has a role in aiding parents to fulfil their obligations towards their children, and it is with this in mind that the Underage Drinking Bill has passed through the second reading. It is important for the public to be aware that it is, in reality, already illegal to sell alcohol to persons under the age of 16. However, with the new law, it will also become illegal for a person under 16 to buy, consume or procure alcohol as well as for a third person to procure or serve alcohol to someone under the age of 16.
One must not forget that the government’s commitment to children certainly does not stop here, far from it! Apart from the financial input into the educational and cultural spheres, with regards to child-oriented services, let us not forget the Foundation for Social Welfare Services, comprising Appogg, Sedqa and Sapport. This Foundation has been allocated a record total of more than Lm4.05 million, with Lm1.06 million being allocated specifically to Appogg. This apart from other entities within the ministry, which can also address children issues, such as the national commissions, working groups, services and committees.
Ms Cassar’s “passion for children” should be applauded – in fact more persons should have the best interests of children at heart. However, the best interests of children implies also acknowledging what has already been achieved, welcoming the positive steps which this country has undertaken, and laying out a positive, constructive path for future development. Warping the facts and spewing forth un-truths will be of benefit to no-one, least of all our children.
Dr Elaine Burmingham BA, LL.D. is a secretariat
officer at the Family and Social Solidarity Ministry