In a judgement given by the Family Court some weeks ago, a German national was removed as joint custodian with his wife of their two minor boys aged 10 and eight and their care and custody awarded solely to the mother.

According to the separation contract entered into between the couple on 22 August 2002, the parents had agreed to share joint custody of the two children. The court had been asked by plaintiff to remove his wife from this joint custody and to have the care and custody of the two children entrusted to him alone or jointly with a tutor.

In her defence, the mother of the children said that this request should not be acceded to. She told the judge that her husband had left Malta in October 2005 and had never seen the children, that she had taken care of them on her own and catered for all their needs, financial and otherwise. She objected to having a third party as a tutor and claimed that she should be awarded sole care and custody.

The court sought the expert opinion of Appogg to help it establish whether the parents should have joint custody of the children or whether, as the father requested, there should also be a third party as a tutor, or whether the custody should be in the hands of either of the parents solely.

The report submitted by the Appogg expert stated that the mother had shown herself to be a good mother. The court, after having also heard the children and all the evidence produced by the parties, decided that the mother should be given the sole care and custody of the two boys.

This issue was brought before the court in November 2004 when the father had filed a lawsuit against his wife from whom he had been separated in August 2002. In this lawsuit (apart from the care and custody issue), the father had filed another request in which he claimed that in 2000 he had prepaid the amounts agreed upon in the subsequent 2002 separation agreement as maintenance payments due to the mother for their two children and for herself.

He asked the court to declare that he did not owe any maintenance payments as mentioned in the separation agreement to the mother. The mother said this was not true and also showed why and what for the 2000 payments had been made i.e. for reasons totally different to the separation maintenance payments. After all, at that time no separation existed or had been contemplated.

After hearing all the evidence and examining all documents and notes of submissions by the parties, the court found for the mother also on this issue. The court did not accept that the father had prepaid the maintenance. The court said that the father had to prove this and he had not done so.

The court ordered the father to pay maintenance to the mother as agreed on in the separation contract. The quantum is to be established by a court-appointed expert and the case was put off so that judgement on this quantum is given.

Dr Hugh Peralta acted on behalf of the mother and Dr Michael Sciriha and Dr Aaron Mifsud Bonnici on behalf of the father.