A child-protection professional gave detailed evidence about concerns involving eight-year-old Khyl Agius Bonavia only hours before he and his mother, Lorraine Bonavia went missing.

The testimony, delivered on 11 June 2026, provided a window into the increasingly adversarial circumstances surrounding the boy before he was reported missing.

Social welfare professional Lara Borg, who worked in the intake section of Malta's Directorate for the Protection of Children, described reports received from the child's school, alleged disclosures made by the boy, attempts to interview his mother and an increasingly strained exchange between the authorities and Bonavia's lawyer.

During her testimony, Borg said the directorate had received reports from the child's school alleging physical mistreatment by Lorraine Bonavia. She told the court the boy had allegedly described being slapped, pushed and left with bruises.

The allegations were disputed during the hearing, while Bonavia's lawyer repeatedly challenged both the social worker's interpretation of events and the directorate's approach.

Within hours of the sitting, however, mother and child ended up missing.

Police have since appealed for information about their whereabouts, saying they were last seen together in Mosta's main square.

The court documents reveal a case far more complex than a straightforward missing-person report: overlapping family proceedings, reports of alleged mistreatment involving both sides of the family, child-protection assessments, a magisterial inquiry and a legal challenge accusing police of failing to act.

The testimony delivered on June 11

Lara Borg appeared in proceedings between Mark Terence Agius and Lorraine Bonavia.

She said she had worked as a professional social welfare professional with the Directorate for the Protection of Children for almost seven years and was serving within its intake section.

Borg said the directorate's involvement in the family dated back to a report received in August 2023.

That initial report concerned serious allegations made by Bonavia against the boy's father. Owing to their nature, a magisterial inquiry was opened.

According to Borg, the directorate did not attempt to replace the police or the inquiring magistrate. Its separate responsibility was to assess the child's welfare and determine whether protective intervention was necessary.

The 11 June hearing, however, focused heavily on information received more recently concerning the child's situation with his mother.

Reports from the school

Borg said that in March 2026, the directorate received information from the boy's school and from other professionals.

She testified school staff had reported statements allegedly made by the child suggesting his mother had physically mistreated him.

Among the incidents described in court was an allegation the child had been slow while carrying out a task at home, was pushed to the ground and said his mother had struck him with her fingers, causing bruising.

Borg said a member of the school staff had encountered the boy in distress and asked what had happened.

She also referred to an incident connected to a school pizza activity held before carnival.

According to the account she gave, the child did not finish all the food given to him and later claimed his mother had reacted physically.

In another alleged incident, Borg said the child described being slapped in the face, striking his nose against a table and bleeding.

The social worker recalled him saying that his mother was often angry and that he wanted the alleged hitting to stop.

These accounts were not evidence personally witnessed by Borg. They were her record and recollection of what had reportedly been communicated by the boy and school professionals.

The testimony was interrupted when Bonavia's lawyer, objected Borg was interpreting what the child had said rather than simply reproducing his words.

The court allowed the witness to continue but repeatedly had to intervene as the questioning became confrontational.

A visit to the child's school

Borg said she personally visited the school after the information was received and spoke to the boy.

She considered the school meeting significant because it was not simply repeating an allegation originating from either parent. Its staff had regular contact with the child and could observe his behaviour and emotional state.

The school had not, on Borg's account, witnessed the alleged conduct inside the home. Its personnel reported statements made by the child and circumstances in which he appeared upset.

Borg maintained that reports from professional sources could not be ignored, even in the context of an acrimonious dispute between the parents.

She did not present a completed investigation or a final professional finding that the allegations against Bonavia were substantiated.

The meeting Child Protection Services wanted

A central part of the hearing concerned the directorate's efforts to arrange a meeting with Bonavia.

Borg said she wanted the mother to attend the directorate's offices so that she could be informed about the reports and give her version of events.

According to Borg, Bonavia was resistant to attending without first being told more about the subject of the meeting.

Borg maintained the seriousness and confidentiality of the reports made it inappropriate to disclose the full details through WhatsApp messages or a telephone conversation.

A disputed warning about police assistance

Borg told the court Child Protection Services could seek police assistance if a parent failed to cooperate with a necessary safeguarding assessment. She said this was because child-protection intervention was not always a voluntary service where professionals believed a child could be at risk.

The possibility of police assistance was one of the most contested elements of the testimony.

Lorraine Bonavia's lawyer challenged the suggestion her client had merely refused to cooperate. Her position was Bonavia wanted to know the legal basis for the instruction to attend and the subject matter of the meeting, particularly when police involvement had been mentioned.

Messages exchanged between the social worker and Bonavia's lawyer were discussed and partly read into the court record.

According to the testimony, Fiott introduced herself as Bonavia's lawyer and questioned why her client had allegedly been instructed to attend a meeting without being properly briefed.

She asked for the legal basis for the directorate's position and sought information about the nature of the report.

Borg's response was that she had not refused to inform Bonavia.

She said the matter was not suitable for discussion over telephone calls or messages and that an appointment should be made at the Directorate's offices, where the report could be explained properly.

Borg also asked the lawyer to encourage her client to cooperate so that unnecessary measures could be avoided.

Fiott subsequently sought further clarification, asked that communications be put in writing and raised questions about what action had been taken over the serious report Bonavia herself had made years earlier concerning the child.

The hearing became tense when portions of the messages were read aloud.

Fiott argued selected messages risked being presented without their full context and said that the complete correspondence should be produced.

A different interaction with the father

Borg said she had also communicated with the child's father, Mark Terence Agius.

She described him as cooperative and said communication with him had been more straightforward.

According to her testimony, Agius expressed concern about the child, wanted the reports investigated and asked what he could do because he did not have access to his son at the time.

Borg also testified the father raised concerns about Bonavia's mental stability.

That was the father's reported opinion and not an independent medical assessment presented by Borg.

The contrast between the Directorate's dealings with the two parents became another point of contention.

Borg denied treating Bonavia unfairly or favouring the father. She said each parent had been approached according to the circumstances and the safeguarding information available.

Serious allegations had previously been made against the father

The allegations concerning the mother did not arise in isolation.

Court records show Bonavia had made a police report on 27 August 2023 concerning an alleged sexual offence against her son by his father.

The police response, reproduced in later proceedings, states that an inquiry numbered 569/2023 was opened because of the seriousness of the allegations. 

That inquiry was originally assigned to Magistrate Lara Lanfranco and was subsequently handled by Magistrate Joseph Mifsud.

A seven-page process verbal dated December 2025 says the inquiry concerned alleged indecent acts against the then-five-year-old child.

The document records that an expert who analysed a video of the child's account raised concerns about the questioning, the child's emotional presentation and the possibility of influence or suggestive questioning.

The expert did not simply conclude the allegations were false. She identified uncertainty, warned about the dangers of leading questions and recommended that the father's version also be obtained so that his relationship with the child could be evaluated more fully.

The inquiry record also states certain recordings had not initially been inserted into the magisterial file and the police later confirmed the existence of authentic, continuous and unedited footage.

At the end of the process verbal, Magistrate Mifsud referred the findings to the Executive Police, directing them to take the experts' conclusions into consideration, complete their investigations and take all steps considered necessary. 

Bonavia's challenge against the police

Bonavia later filed what is known in Maltese criminal procedure as a challenge, seeking an order requiring the Police Commissioner to prosecute the father and three members of his family, the father's mother, father and sister.

The case was decided by Magistrate Nadine Sant Lia on 8 July 2026, after Bonavia and the child had disappeared.

Bonavia's application argued that police had failed to act on her reports and complaints despite what she considered to be a prima facie case.

She alleged police bias and said the authorities were trying to discredit the child's account while protecting the people accused in the complaints.

The Police Commissioner rejected that claim and argued that action had been taken, including the opening of a magisterial inquiry.

The police also said that an intended forensic interview with the child had not taken place because Bonavia insisted that she and her lawyer should be present, while the Children's House authorities considered it necessary for the child to be interviewed alone to minimise possible influence or contamination. 

What the court actually decided

The court's task  in this 'challenge' was to determine whether sufficient prima facie material existed to justify ordering the police to initiate criminal proceedings.

Magistrate Sant Lia held parts of the challenge concerned alleged offences for which the decision to prosecute belonged to the Attorney General rather than the Police Commissioner.

The Magistrates' Court therefore said it lacked jurisdiction to decide those parts of Bonavia's application.

The judgment ordered the decision and procedural records be notified to the Attorney General.

For the remaining allegations within its competence, the court found that the evidence did not reach the prima facie threshold required to order criminal proceedings against Mark Terence Agius, and his family members.

The court placed particular importance on testimony the child had given directly on 15 April 2026. It said he described episodes in which he felt intimidated, uncomfortable or afraid around paternal family members, but concluded that even if his descriptions were accepted, the evidence did not establish the constituent elements of the specific offences invoked in the complaints.

The judgment specifically stressed that the court was not determining the guilt or innocence of those named. It was deciding whether the material before it justified the institution of criminal proceedings.

The last hearing before the disappearance

On the morning of 11 June 2026, a social welfare professional gave evidence that Child Protection Services were actively following reports concerning the boy and had experienced difficulties securing the mother's cooperation with its procedures.

Later, mother and son disappeared.

Bonavia's lawyer sends statement

Following publication of this article, Bonavia's lawyer, Nadya Fiott sent a statement disputing the account of the Family Court proceedings on 11 June. Fiott argued the decree transferring the child's care to his father was issued after Lara Borg's testimony and before the defence had the opportunity to fully respond or have the child heard.

Fiott further claimed she was removed from the courtroom before the decree was delivered, leaving Bonavia without legal representation at that stage of the proceedings. According to Fiott, the child had consistently expressed fear of his father and repeatedly said he "wanted to go to heaven" because no one understands him. She also claimed that after informing the child of Borg's testimony, he denied ever making the statements attributed to him in court. These assertions were made in the lawyer's statement.

Fiott also challenged Lara Borg's professional status since she was not listed as a warranted social worker under the Social Work Profession Act and therefore should not have presented herself as a professional social worker. This issue was raised before the Family Court during a subsequent sitting on 25 June 2026.

Lawyers Veronique Dalli and Dean Hili are representing the father of the child, while lawyer Nadya Fiott is representing the mother.