Russian child's case

The law report regarding the possession of a passport in the name of a Russian minor (April 11) calls for clarification and corrections.

The report states that Rita Scicluna, according to the court findings, was bound to ensure the well-being of the child while he was in her care; that Ms Scicluna had abusively withdrawn the passport from the immigration office; that the minor had been residing with Ms Scicluna, and had been doing so for some time; and that Ms Scicluna was the child's host family.

Had the reporter perused and examined minutely the whole court records, he would have discovered clearly all the facts.

The facts are these:

1) The child was not in the care of Ms Scicluna at the time the writ was filed; Ms Scicluna did not want to keep the child any more; the child was entrusted to another Maltese host family during the first week of September, 2002.

2) It is not true that Ms Scicluna abusively withdrew the passport from the immigration office. Ms Scicluna, who was a voluntary helper in the International Charity Society, was asked by Irina Malikova, who had left the passport with the immigration office, to withdraw it and return it to her. Ms Scicluna correctly withdrew the passport but refused to return it to Mrs Malikova.

3) At the time all these events happened, the child had not been in the care of Ms Scicluna since September 2002 and, therefore, she was not bound to ensure his well-being.

4) No adoption proceedings regarding the child have been started with the Russian authorities by Ms Scicluna.