Friday, 19th December 2008

Marriage Act anomaly 'settled'

The Private Member's Bill presented by Labour MP Josè Herrera to revise what he considers to be an anomaly in the Marriage Act is unnecessary because the problem had already been corrected, the Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs said.

Dr Herrera has argued that, if a married person refuses to pay maintenance, criminal steps, which could lead to imprisonment, would be taken against him/her. However, there was no effective remedy in the case of unmarried couples, making the law discriminatory.

However, a spokesman for the ministry said that when Dr Herrera presented his Bill he was "fully aware that we were already working on it".

The spokesman added that the anomaly had already been addressed in Bill 16, which was published in the Government Gazette a full week before Dr Herrera presented the Private Member's Bill.

The law now refers to both married and unmarried couples, the spokesman added.

Previous article • Gżira kiosk is legal
Next article • Documentary wins Sicilian award

Article © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on Sunday, November 8, 2009. This article is for personal use only, and should not be distributed.

Comments

lgalea (on 19/12/08)

The rule should be:
Father unknown = NOT accepted
Father unknown = absolutely NO benefits.

Why should us taxpayers pay through our nose for other peoples enjoyment who then do not shoulder the responsibility of their enjoyment?

Rape excluded.

Carmel Said (on 19/12/08)

Its a pity that the income tax law is not also amended to include unmarried couples who are bringing up a family but cannot get married due to the lack of a divorce law in Malta. Shouldn't these couple also be permitted to pay income tax using the married rates instead of the single rates

Jane Goodall (on 19/12/08)

I agree with Marisa Mifsud.
Most cases unknown father is put on the birth certificate so that the parents of the poor child get more money from us taxpayers, while the father still contributes to the child's upbringing. I know of at least 8 cases in my locality alone. They are motivated by greed to acquire money that they don't care that the child might face some issues when he/she grows up because of an incomplete birth certificate.
In the cases of "holiday romances" don't you think that it is stupidity that our taxes help finance the promiscuity of some!! What about when the child grows up and wonders why they do not have a daddy like the rest of their friends. What will the mother say, "I met a man on holiday and had anonymous sex"?

Paul Barrett (on 19/12/08)

@ Marisa Mifsud - Re: I assume that nobody sleeps with someone without knowing about it or who the other person is (with exception to rape cases obviously).

Unfortunately your statement is not always the case - have you never heard of "holiday romance". This is a holiday island :-)

David Buttigieg (on 19/12/08)

@Marisa Mifsud,

You're kidding right?

Marisa Mifsud (on 19/12/08)

I think women who state "father unknown" on the birth certificate should be forced to give details of their sexual partners so that paternity tests can be carried out. If they fail to do so, they should have their benifits cut/reduced. Too much money is being handed out to these fraudulant people. I assume that nobody sleeps with someone without knowing about it or who the other person is (with exeption to rape cases obviously).

D Vella (on 19/12/08)

So what happens when an unmarried mother doesn't identify the father of her child (or says she doesn't know who he is) and he (obviously) does not pay any maintenance?? Ah, of course . . . the taxpayer foots the bill !! Another anomaly (or grave injustice to honest taxpayers) perhaps??