Any effort to improve Malta's Family Court system, make it more efficient and ensure that cases are dealt with in a reasonable amount of time should be welcomed.

The publication of the Family Court Procedures Regulations 2026, together with the related legislation and commencement notices, is therefore a positive development. The reform promises clearer procedures, specific timeframes, stronger safeguards for children and a more accessible and efficient system for families going through what are often among the most difficult periods of their lives.

But there is an old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this case, the proof will be in whether the new system actually works.

For years, one of the greatest weaknesses of Malta's justice system has been delay. This is particularly troubling when the cases involved are not merely disputes over money or property, but concern children, their living arrangements, maintenance, access to parents and their general welfare.

A family court case cannot be treated like an ordinary administrative procedure in which a delay is merely inconvenient. When parents are separated and unable to agree, it is the children who are caught in the middle. Every postponed hearing, every unresolved dispute, and every bureaucratic obstacle can prolong uncertainty in their lives.

This is why the government's emphasis on putting children at the centre of the reform is the most important element of the entire package.

Children do not choose for their families to break apart. They do not choose the disputes between their parents, nor should they be made to carry the emotional and practical consequences of those disputes. Yet, too often, they become the unfortunate victims of broken relationships and protracted legal battles.

The new framework therefore needs to ensure not only that children are heard, where appropriate, but that their interests are genuinely protected. Giving children a voice is important. Making sure that adults and institutions act in their best interests is even more crucial.

The government says the reform will introduce clearer procedures, stronger safeguards, new timeframes, clearer criteria relating to maintenance and equal parental responsibilities regarding access. These are all worthwhile objectives.

But legislation on paper is only the beginning.

The real test will come when the first wave of cases goes through the reformed system. Will hearings actually take place within the promised timeframes? Will cases be resolved more quickly? Will the necessary professionals be available? Will the Children's Advocate function have the resources it needs? Will the Support Office operate effectively? And, most importantly, will families notice a meaningful difference?

There is also a danger in judging success by the number of new structures created, offices established or regulations published. Those are means, not ends.

The end result must be a Family Court that delivers justice more quickly while never sacrificing the quality of decisions or the protection of children. Speed is important, but speed without proper safeguards is not justice. Equally, a system that offers excellent safeguards but takes years to reach decisions is failing families in another way.

The government has also indicated that this is only the first phase of a wider reform and that further changes are planned. That is sensible. The justice system cannot remain static, particularly as family structures and social circumstances continue to change.

But the next phase should be informed by the experience of the first. The government should monitor the new system closely, publish meaningful data on waiting times and case durations, and be prepared to acknowledge and correct weaknesses when they emerge.

There should be no political victory lap simply because legislation has been passed.

The real victory will be when a parent going through separation finds that the system is clearer, faster and fairer. And the ultimate measure of success will be whether children emerging from the trauma of family breakdown are better protected from the consequences of disputes that were never of their making.

The reform deserves an opportunity to succeed.

Now it has to prove that it can.