It was a good day for one child on Friday when a judge, after hearing the 10-year-old girl in private behind the closed doors of his chambers, ruled in line with her wishes to remain in Malta with her father rather than being sent to the UK to live with a mother she says she is hardly acquainted with.

But it is questionable how many other children are given the same treatment and who, as such, never have their voices heard by the courts on matters that affect them on the deepest of levels.

The case is a highly emotive one, as is just about any case involving children. In this case, the ruling, which has been appealed by the Attorney General, delivered a positive verdict for a girl who resides with her father and stepmother in Malta, and whose mother is seeking to have her returned to her in the UK. It was claimed in court that the girl is happily settled in Malta with the only family she has ever known, and that she hardly knows her mother.

The details of this particular case are extensive, but the real problem in the wider angle is that the girl and her custodial family had, before the presiding judge changed his mind, feared that she may have never had a chance to present her own arguments and express her own wishes in a case that would decide her future and her future happiness.

In this particular case, the child’s wish to plead her own case and to make her wishes known was acceded to, but that was only at the discretion of the presiding judge. That, no doubt, is a good thing. But as matters stand, in issues related to parental authority and decisions that affect the best interests of the child, the Civil Court is only obliged to hear the children concerned if they have reached the age of 14.

And without a more robust legal framework and enhanced rights for children who find themselves, very much involuntarily, in such situations, other children are not being given that basic fundamental right, as enshrined in the United Nations Conference on the Rights of the Child, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and by the Council of Europe.

It would be a real travesty indeed if such fundamental principles were not upheld in the Maltese courts, which they reportedly are to a large extent, but there is nevertheless a serious need to further bolster the child-friendly structures in place in the system.

For one, legislation pertaining to children’s advocates, crucial for the protection of children’s rights and interests, needs to be strengthened, while the age threshold under which children’s cases are heard in the juvenile court needs to be raised to 17.

According to the Office of the Commissioner for Children, the fact that children are not automatically supported by a children’s advocate and are not able to ask to be represented by one is actually the most serious shortcoming in Maltese law when it comes to children’s rights being upheld in court. Justice, according to the Commissioner’s office, should always be child-friendly as well as sensitive to their inherent and special vulnerability, and mindful of the viewpoint of children involved in court cases.

At present, the Family Court can appoint a children’s advocate to represent any child if it deems it appropriate, but that is solely at the court’s discretion. In the case in question, for example, the father had requested the court to nominate a child’s advocate for his daughter, but the request had been rejected.

The draft National Children’s Policy suggests such a move in that direction, and rightly so − children need to be encouraged and empowered to stand up for their rights in any situation, since there is very often a huge gap between a child’s wishes and views on a situation and those of an adult. As such, they also need to be given rights at law to decide independently whether to be represented by a children’s advocate, along with being provided with practical and psychological support in line with their respective maturity levels.

The draft policy also proposes giving all children the right to be heard in matters concerning them, irrespective of their age, as well as increasing collaboration between Aġenzija Appoġġ and the courts when it comes to the participation of children in legal proceedings.

The Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure stipulates that people of all ages, including children, are admissible as witnesses as long as they are considered to be of sound mind. The Code also provides for the additional protection of children in judicial proceedings, giving them the right to be represented and to appear in the proceedings as plaintiff or respondent, and provides for a court-appointed curator to act in the child’s best interests.

This is all well and good, but as the draft policy and numerous experts agree, a lot more needs to be done along these lines if justice is to be served to its full extent with respect to every person, irrespective of their age. It is hoped that the draft policy, once developed into a final document, will cover all these bases.