More and less protection

Of a hundred proposed amendments to the Civil Code, it was the radical changes that the Justice and Home Affairs Minister, Tonio Borg, had in mind on inheritance that attracted the attention of the media. Illegitimacy as a reference to children born out of wedlock is no longer politically or emotionally correct. It is out. That being the case, it follows that the inheritance laws had to come under review.

In the old version of the code the word 'illegitimate' occurred 50 times. At issue now is the status of the person who used to be coded as 'illegitimate' and now no longer carries that status, and the legal relationship, so far as inheritance is concerned, with his or her 'legitimate' step-brothers, or step-sisters. Fourteen per cent of all births, according to Dr Borg, are out of wedlock.

This makes for confusion and, in effect, the creation of a complicated family tree. The thinking behind these amendments is that it is not the fault of the child that the mother or the father acted the way they did. This will not prevent children born in wedlock questioning the new status of what once were illegitimate children now legitimised and entitled not only to their share of the pickings but, if it so takes either of the spouses, they can now be preferred inheritors, as can the children of a second marriage.

Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters born in and out of wedlock who have problems with the changes will no doubt be ringing up their lawyers to shed further light on what can and cannot be done once the amendments are enacted in parliament and entered into the Civil Code. What they cannot do is remain blissfully unaware of their new position. Dr Borg took this position on board on the advice of the Attorney-General's office. This, in turn, had to examine in detail the fruit of the work of a commission presided by ex-Judge Riccardo Farrugia, an exercise that has been going on for years. The minister gave an outline of what was being proposed, last week.

At the centre of the changes insofar as their relevance and importance are concerned is the disposal of property by a husband or wife after death. In effect, the surviving spouse is better off under the new regime. Wives, or husbands for that matter, rejoice! There is no limit to the property you can inherit from one another subject always to the law of minimum inheritance, which has been retained. Children of a marriage do not come out of this as well as they used to. They are now subject to the determinations, made at different times, of both their parents, separately.

The surviving spouse is further protected by a sensible proposal that would pass on the whole of the inheritance to her if there are no children and the deceased failed to draw up a will. Brothers and sisters of the deceased may sulk at this one but it is clearly a correct provision. They have lost half of, or will no longer be entitled to, what used to be their inheritance under such circumstances. There may be grouses here, too, but the principle is manifestly correct.

Dr Borg will argue, substantially, that new situations require new appraisals in legal terms. Once it shifts, what was the norm 50 years ago does not cope with the social reality that exists today. Whether the new code will open the floodgates remains to be seen. It seems to be the experience that when floodgates do open, the course of the waters is not easy to predict; nor are subsequent ramifications to the social, moral, legal scene, immediately clear.