Father wins back boys from grandmother

Fathers cannot be deprived of their right to raise their own children, a court recently ruled when it overturned a custody arrangement that privileged a grandmother over the father.

Although grandmothers have a special relationship with their grandchildren, this could not come at the expense of the father's rights, the court ruled.

The judgment was delivered following an appeal lodged by a father whose children were handed over to the maternal grandmother by the Family Court.

Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Albert Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia, presiding over the Court of Appeal, overturned the first court's judgment but ordered that a social worker be appointed to monitor the children's progress while with their father.

In October 2007, the maternal grandmother of the two underage boys had asked the Family Court to grant her care of the children on the basis that their father was not bringing them up properly.

The children had been taken away from the custody of her daughter (the mother), who worked as a prostitute and had a gambling problem, and given to the father by an appeals court.

But the maternal grandmother then filed an application before the Family Court, claiming that the boys were not being brought up properly and that they would receive a better upbringing with her. This was upheld by the Family Court and the father then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In the latest judgment, the Court of Appeal overruled this, arguing that while a grandmother had a juridical interest in the upbringing of her grandchildren, a father should not be deprived of his right and duty to raise his own children, unless the circumstances were serious enough to warrant this.

The grandmother had alleged that the father was neglecting the education of the two boys. But this was contradicted by the evidence given by social workers and by the heads of the children's schools.

Both boys, contrary to testimony given by the grandmother, attended school regularly and were clean and well-fed. Furthermore, the father had shown an interest in his children's education.

She also claimed that the father gave a bad example to his children and the boys blasphemed. The father denied this allegation and his testimony was supported by the court-appointed social worker. The youngest boy had started to use blasphemy but the court concluded that the extremities of language recorded by his grandmother suggested that there was some connivance on her part.

The grandmother had also alleged that the boys were exposed to certain adult conduct by their father. Here again the Court of Appeal found that evidence in support of this claim was lacking. No proof of this allegation was found by the social worker.

The Court of Appeal heard evidence given by the boys' maternal aunt about this adult behaviour and described the testimony as being frightening. However, the court also concluded that it found it difficult to accept the sexual exaggerations described by the aunt.

To avoid any doubt, the Court of Appeal ordered that a social worker be appointed to specifically follow up on the allegations in such a manner as not to cause any trauma to the children.

In its judgment the court also noted that the younger boy, who was five, had testified that he loved both his grandmother and his father, while the older boy, who was 14, said that he did not want to interfere between his grandmother and father and that he preferred the courts to order where he was to live.

The Court of Appeal overturned the first court's judgment and awarded the care and custody of the boys to their father.

The court however ordered Aġenzija Appoġġ to appoint a social worker to investigate the allegations made by the boys' maternal aunt and to report back within two months. The court also reserved the right to deliver further decisions concerning the boys after this report.