Failure to embed child-friendly justice within Malta's court system risks breaching children's fundamental human rights, President Emeritus Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca has warned.
In an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday, Coleiro Preca stressed that justice systems designed for adults can retraumatise children and silence their voices at moments when they most need protection.
She expressed deep concern over the continued underutilisation of the Children's House in Santa Venera, a purpose-designed, child-friendly environment intended for children involved in family court proceedings, including cases of separation, custody disputes, and abuse.
Despite its availability, proceedings continue to be held within traditional courtrooms in Valletta, following objections from certain stakeholders to relocating hearings.
"This is not a logistical issue; it is a children's rights issue," Coleiro Preca said. "A child's right to justice is inseparable from the right to be heard in an environment that is safe, non-intimidating and appropriate to their age and vulnerability."
She warned that exposing children to formal courtrooms, legal language they do not understand, and adversarial procedures designed for adults can undermine both their wellbeing and the integrity of judicial outcomes.
A justice system that children fear
Coleiro Preca's comments follow the publication of a comprehensive study by the Malta Foundation for the Wellbeing of Society on child-friendly justice conducted by Dr Bernadine Satariano for the Foundation.
The research, based on in-depth interviews with children, parents, legal professionals, psychologists, and social workers, paints a troubling picture: children involved in family court proceedings frequently feel invisible, unheard, and overwhelmed.
One child interviewed for the study described the court experience as "scary and confusing," adding, "I felt like everyone was talking about me, but nobody was talking to me."
Another child stated bluntly: "I wanted to explain what I was feeling, but I didn't know who would listen."
According to the research, many children reported that they did not understand why they were in court, what decisions were being taken, or how their views would be used. Several said they were afraid that speaking honestly would lead to consequences at home.
"These are not isolated experiences," Coleiro Preca said. "They are systemic failures that reveal how far we still are from a justice system that genuinely places children at its centre."
Legal obligations, not optional measures
Coleiro Preca stressed that child-friendly justice is not a matter of goodwill or convenience but a legal obligation arising from Malta's commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
"Article 3 obliges us to act in the best interests of the child. Article 12 guarantees the child's right to be heard. Article 40 requires that justice systems dealing with children promote dignity and reintegration," she explained. "When proceedings take place in environments that intimidate children or exclude their voices, we are failing on all three counts."
The research reinforces this point. Legal professionals interviewed acknowledged that, despite best intentions, current procedures often prioritise efficiency and adult convenience over children's needs.
One legal practitioner admitted: "The system is structured around adult timelines and adult comfort. Children are expected to fit into it, rather than the system adapting to them."
Children's House: a missed opportunity
The Children's House in Santa Venera was established precisely to address these shortcomings, offering a neutral, child-friendly setting with trained professionals, appropriate facilities, and safeguards against retraumatisation. Yet the research indicates that its potential remains largely untapped.
Several professionals interviewed expressed frustration at the reluctance to move proceedings away from traditional court settings. A psychologist involved in the study noted: "We have the infrastructure, we have the expertise, but we lack the collective resolve to use them consistently."
Coleiro Preca described this resistance as deeply concerning. "When adult convenience takes precedence over children's wellbeing, the justice system loses its moral authority," she said.
The silence of discretion
A recurring theme in the research is the discretionary nature of safeguards intended to protect children. The appointment of child advocates, the use of child-friendly spaces, and the provision of psychosocial support are often left to judicial discretion rather than embedded as standard practice.
"This creates inconsistency and inequality," Coleiro Preca warned. "A child's protection should never depend on chance, personalities, or individual interpretation."
One social worker interviewed observed: "Two children in similar situations can have completely different experiences, simply because one judge prioritises child participation and another does not."
The study recommends that child advocates be appointed automatically whenever a child is involved in court proceedings and that psychosocial support be integrated throughout the judicial process, from initial hearings to final decisions.
Training gaps and communication failures
The research also highlights significant gaps in training among legal professionals when it comes to communicating with children. Many professionals interviewed acknowledged that their legal education had not equipped them to engage meaningfully with children or to interpret children's views accurately.
"Children communicate differently," Coleiro Preca said. "They may express themselves through silence, behaviour, or emotion rather than words. If professionals are not trained to understand this, children's voices are easily misinterpreted or dismissed."
One child interviewed captured this frustration poignantly: "They asked me questions, but they didn't wait for my answers."
Long-term consequences
Coleiro Preca warned that the consequences of ignoring child-friendly justice extended far beyond the courtroom. Research evidence shows that children who feel unheard during legal proceedings are more likely to experience anxiety, mistrust of institutions, and long-term emotional distress.
"When children experience the justice system as something that happens to them rather than with them, it erodes trust not only in courts, but in society itself," she said.
Professionals interviewed echoed this concern. One family therapist noted: "Court experiences can either help children make sense of family breakdown or compound the trauma. Too often, it is the latter."
From structures to resolve
Coleiro Preca acknowledged recent commitments by the Justice Minister to strengthen children's participation within judicial reforms, describing these as encouraging. However, she stressed that now reform must translate into practice, 'but I have hope it will'.
"Malta already has the structures, the expertise, and the international obligations required to deliver child-friendly justice," she said.
She argued that child-friendly courts, trained professionals, automatic advocacy, and integrated psychosocial support must become the norm rather than the exception.
A test of justice
Reflecting on the research findings, Coleiro Preca concluded with a strong warning: a justice system that sidelines children is failing in its most basic duty.
"When children are unheard, intimidated, or excluded from decisions that profoundly affect their lives, the system ceases to be just," she said. "This is not a procedural flaw; it is a breach of children's rights."
She issued a direct challenge to policymakers, professionals, and institutions alike: "The true test of our justice system is not how convenient it is for adults, but how well it safeguards the dignity, voice, and wellbeing of every child."
Rejecting the notion that children's rights can be postponed, she added: "Children are not citizens of tomorrow. They are citizens today. Their rights demand protection now, and our response will define the kind of society we choose to be."