Issues such as the nature of divorce legislation and the impact of divorce on children were briefly discussed today when the Parliamentary Social Affairs Committee continued a discussion on divorce.

The debate started yesterday on the basis of a presentation by Martin Scicluna on the Today study group’s report which called for the introduction of divorce in Malta.

Resuming his presentation, Mr Scicluna quoted overseas studies which found that children were better off in divorced households than in families which stayed together in conflict.

It was wrong to argue, he said, that divorce on its own harmed children, and it was better to discuss what factors harmed children before and after separation. Children viewed parental separation or divorce as a crisis and a trauma, but that diminished within the first year when there was stability. What affected children most was intense and ongoing conflict.

Custody arrangements post divorce also had a major impact on children, with joint custody being much better for children’s adjustment.

OBJECTIONS TO REMARRIAGE AFTER SEPARATION

It was nonsense, Mr Scicluna said, to argue that cohabitation was higher where divorce existed, because there was no connection between cohabitation and divorce.

Cohabitation was more popular among the younger adults because it was viewed as a stepping stone to marriage, a sort of testing a relationship before tying the knot. This did not mean a divorce mentality but a case of evolving societies and the way people approached marriage.

It was cynical to say that divorce transformed marriage into a temporary contract. Society currently paid a heavy price for sustaining the indissolubility of marriage and marginalizing separated couples instead of encouraging them into stable new marriages.

While no two countries were alike, in Ireland, a Catholic country like Malta, the introduction of divorce had not borne out the dire predictions of those who had opposed it. The Irish, like the Italians, had some of the lowest divorce rates, and he did not see Malta being different.

Changing the law, as long as it was done in the right way, would not undermine society.

“The wise legislator will ensure that divorce legislation is firm but fair and will not lead to easy divorce.”

LEGISLATION

Mr Scicluna said the Irish law appeared to be the best model Malta could use for its own legislation.

Law had to be sensitive and responsive to the needs and security of both spouses and the children. His suggestion was that access to divorce should be restrictive, with legal separation established for four of the previous five years before dissolution could be granted. The irretrievable failure of the marriage had to be established and there had to be a comprehensive support system including mediation and social support, for families to reach the right decision.

The current legal remedy of separation had been unsatisfactory. It had not stopped marriage breakdowns, but it had caused untold pain for those who wished to remarry, Mr Scicluna said. Society would gain more if people had the freedom to remarry in an ordered structure rather than resort to cohabitation because they had no choice.

Dr Michael Farrugia (PL) said he felt there should be separation between the laws of the state and religions. The state had to legislate for everyone. It was discriminatory that some Maltese could opt to live briefly abroad to be able to get divorce and then remarry in Malta, while others who could not afford to do so and stayed in Malta did not have the same opportunity.

His personal and professional experience showed that one of the biggest and most harmful problems for children was having to live within ongoing conflict within families which were united in name only.

On the other hand, separation which was smooth resulted in a positive outcome for the children. Of course, problems continued for the children if the spouses remained in conflict after separation. Children who remained in the custody of just one parent also risked suffering from problems such as poverty.

Believing in marriage had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with divorce. Opting for divorce could be something positive for those who believed in marriage but whose first marriage broke down, because they could remarry. That provided them with better emotional and also legal security whether it was for social services, succession or even assisted procreation - if the IVF law was to be restricted to married couples.

He felt that loving couples should therefore be given the opportunity to remarry. He agreed that one should consider the Irish model of divorce legislation, where divorce was not something which could be acquired easily but was available where marriages broke done irretrievably.

STABLE RELATIONSHIPS

Anthony Zammit (PL) said it was his personal opinion that marriage was something which strengthened society. Where a relationship was stable, the children of that relationship had a greater chance of making a success of their life. He too wished to underscore the distinction between the state and religions and felt the state should legislate to stop the discrimination mentioned by Dr Farrugia about people going abroad to get divorced, making it possible for them to remarry in Malta, while others could not.

He felt that the state should encourage separated couples to return to stable marriage rather than cohabitation. Marriage ended before divorce. Children suffered problems when there was conflict within marriages. Divorce could end the fighting between their parents.

He felt that any decision need to be preceded by discussion and study in the interest of all members of society.

Frederick Azzopardi (PN) said believers in religion should not ignore their faith when they discussed state law. Would it be better to legislate on cohabitation, rather than opting for divorce?

Committee chairman Edwin Vassallo said it was the committee’s duty to speak about the people’s concerns. The ‘religion’ of the committee was the common good. That did not necessarily mean the public mood, but what was right in the context of the MPs’ own morality, as Mr Azzopardi had said, and their defence of the common good.

Referring to Dr Farrugia’s reference to IVF legislation, Mr Vassallo said assisted procreation should ideally be given to married couples, for the sake of the children. Dr Farrugia had spoken of loving couples rather than just married couples. He agreed that legislators had to define what constituted a stable relationship. Marriage on its own did not signify that a relationship was stable.

He augured that the discussion would continue in an open and healthy way, Mr Vassallo said. The fundamental problem was marriage breakdown, and one had to study whether the availability of divorce would further undermine the institution of marriage. His personal view was that divorce reduced marriage to a temporary contract and undermined society, as much as legal separation did.

Dr Farrugia, reacting to Mr Azzopardi's remark, said that because he believed in marriage, he believed Malta should have a divorce law, rather than a law on cohabitation.

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.