Family law is never abstract. It shapes the everyday realities of children and parents at moments of profound vulnerability. When family justice works well, it offers stability, protection and clarity. When it does not, it can prolong conflict and compound harm. Malta's long-awaited reform of the Family Court must be understood against this lived reality, not simply as a legal exercise, but as a social intervention with real consequences for children.
I write this not only as a legislator observing reform, but as a parent who spent eight years entangled in court proceedings with an ex-partner. Those years created havoc and hardship for my son. For a child, this meant growing up in an environment of uncertainty, emotional strain and constant exposure to adult conflict. Research consistently shows that prolonged inter-parental conflict is among the most damaging factors affecting children's emotional and psychological wellbeing following separation (Kelly & Emery, 2003).
It is precisely because delay is not neutral that the current reform matters. One of the most persistent failures of family justice systems internationally is the absence of effective time limits. Protracted proceedings intensify hostility, drain resources and entrench positions, often at the expense of children's needs (Parkinson, 2011). The Maltese reform directly addresses this by introducing structured timelines across mediation and contentious proceedings, mandatory early disclosure of financial and care-related information, and safeguards against procedural abuse (Government of Malta, 2024). These may appear technical, but they represent a fundamental shift in recognising that children cannot afford to wait while adults litigate endlessly.
The establishment of an autonomous Family Court is another critical development. Family disputes require a different judicial lens from commercial or civil litigation. They involve complex emotional dynamics, power imbalances and the long-term interests of children who are not parties to the dispute but bear its consequences. Specialised family courts, staffed by judges trained in family law and child-centred decision-making, are associated with more consistent and sensitive outcomes (Parkinson, 2011). For families, this specialisation offers something often missing from adversarial processes: the sense of being understood rather than processed.
The reform's explicit legal recognition of co-parenting is equally significant. Children generally benefit from stable relationships with both parents, provided there is no risk of harm. Yet access arrangements have too often been treated as optional or easily undermined. By framing access as an enforceable obligation rather than a discretionary privilege, the law acknowledges that denying a child contact can be as harmful as other forms of neglect. Repeated breaches can now trigger swift judicial consequences, reducing the ability of one parent to use delay or non-compliance as a tactic (Government of Malta, 2024). From lived experience, effective enforcement is not punitive; it is protective.
At the same time, the reform avoids a simplistic, one-size-fits-all approach. Where there are allegations of domestic violence, coercive control or intentional manipulation of the process, the court is empowered to suspend mediation immediately and impose protective measures. Domestic violence is clearly recognised as a grave and unacceptable form of abuse, and child safety remains paramount. Importantly, the reform also provides remedies where the judicial process itself is abused through false or malicious allegations, equipping the court with tools to distinguish protection from manipulation (Government of Malta, 2024). This balance is essential to preserving both safety and fairness.
The strengthened role of the Avukat tat-Tfal reflects growing international consensus that children's voices must be independently represented in high-conflict cases. Children's perspectives are often lost amid parental disputes, yet research shows that feeling heard and protected contributes significantly to children's adjustment during family breakdown (Cashmore & Parkinson, 2008). Independent representation helps ensure that decisions are grounded in children's best interests rather than adult agendas.
Equally important is the introduction of state-funded Persuni ta' Sostenn, both as court experts and as therapists. Family conflict is not resolved by legal orders alone. Emotional support, assessment and therapeutic intervention are often necessary, particularly for children exposed to prolonged hostility. Crucially, these roles are now subject to strict reporting timelines, preventing expert involvement from becoming another source of delay.
Financial disputes are another area where delay has traditionally fuelled conflict. By requiring sworn disclosure at the outset and strengthening enforcement mechanisms such as salary deductions or standing bank orders, the reform reduces opportunities for evasion and repeated litigation. For children, financial certainty is not a legal abstraction; it affects education, healthcare and everyday stability (Parkinson, 2011).
For those who have spent years navigating family courts, this reform will not undo past harm. But it does something equally important: it acknowledges that the system itself can become a source of harm if left unchecked. My experience is not exceptional. Many parents and children have endured drawn-out proceedings that served no one's interests. This reform represents a recognition that family justice must prioritise timeliness, proportionality and the lived experience of children.
No reform can eliminate the pain of separation. But it can ensure that the justice system does not deepen that pain unnecessarily. By placing children's best interests, procedural efficiency and accountability at its core, Malta's Family Court reform marks a decisive step towards a more humane approach to family justice. For children caught in conflict, time matters. Justice delayed is not justice neutral; it is justice denied.
Dr Katya De Giovanni is a warranted Organisational Psychologist and Member of Parliament