Three generations of women of the same family yesterday filed a constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming that their constitutional right to a fair hearing had been violated.

The women, whose name is not being published so as to protect the identity of a minor child, filed their application against the Minister for Social Policy, the Attorney General, the Director General of Court, the Foundation for Services for Social Protection and against Agenzija Appogg.

Applicants claimed they were the mother, grandmother and great-grandmother of an eight-year-old girl. The child, they said, was the daughter of an unknown father and was at present subject to a care order issued in January 2003 as the mother had failed to challenge the validity of the order within the legal time limit.

The women claimed that no reason had been given for the issue of the care order and they had to apply to the Second Hall of the Civil Court for a copy of the report that had specified why the order was issued.

That court had eventually given the mother access to the child for one hour a week but access was terminated as the mother, who was under psychiatric care, had to be taken to Appogg by her own mother and this was not always possible.

The three women claimed that the Minister for Social Policy and Appogg continued to insist that the child did not wish to see her mother.

Furthermore, the child used to live with the nuns and, according to Appogg the care order was issued as the child had claimed that her grandmother had taken her to a man in Valletta. However, applicants insisted that this allegation had never been investigated and that the mother was being denied access to the child. The allegation was unjust, applicants added, for even though no claims had been made against the child's mother and great-grandmother they too were being denied access to the child.

Applicants added that at the time the allegation was made the child was living with foster parents who were from Valletta and she was not with her grandmother.

Furthermore, even if it were true that the child did not want to see her family, this was not enough to justify the opposition to visits on the part of the Minister for Social Policy and Appogg.

They claimed that it could be the case that the child did not want to see them because she was ashamed of them for they knew that the child was being sent to families who were well off. Thus the child might be reluctant to see her own family.

Applicants added that the grandmother and the great-grandmother had not seen the child for two years while the mother was being denied access on the basis that this was not in the child's interests.

The courts had based their rulings on the reports issued by Appogg and the Minister for Social Policy.

The grandmother, applicants said, had been condemned by respondents without being tried while the mother and greatgrandmother were being deprived of access, even under supervision.

They concluded their application by asking the court to declare that their fundamental human rights to a fair hearing, to protection from inhuman and degrading treatment and to protection of family life had been violated.

They also requested the court to declare that their right to freedom from discrimination had been violated and to provide them with a remedy including the revocation of the care order.

Dr Anna Mallia signed the application.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.