Martin Scicluna (March 3) made reference to "marriages that are shown to have irretrievably broken down..." and wrote that "the courts should be satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation" when eventually granting divorce.
Who is going to declare that "there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation" and that "marriages have irretrievably broken down" unless the court has appropriate mechanisms to establish these facts?
In his speech on March 13 at the Conference of the International Commission on Couple and Family Relations, the Chief Justice said he was not happy with the system of mediation in family litigation. He was reported to have said that "...mediation takes place in a room where only the parties, their lawyers and the mediator are present". And he called for scrutiny of the mediation services.
The Times report also said, without this time quoting the Chief Justice, that: "The mediator tried to reconcile the couple or work out an amicable separation." Part of this statement is not true. The mediator does not do reconciliation work. He only "works for an amicable separation". The mediator has strict orders from the Mediation Centre not to do reconciliation work.
Mr Scicluna added that the "legal framework for the granting of a civil dissolution of a marriage should also be underpinned by a comprehensive social support system, including, inter alia, comprehensive family mediation and counselling services".
How can "a comprehensive social support system" operate successfully and help litigating married couples reconcile their differences if, during the process, the parties, who are supposed to be reflecting seriously on their past in a calm and serene atmosphere with the reconciliator, have by their sides people trained in the art of verbal combat? The only protagonists in reconciliation should be marriage counsellors, family therapists, psychologists, psychotherapists, psychiatrists and other workers in the related professions.
As to "quality assurance" mentioned by the Chief Justice, it may be needed if the situation regarding mediators remains as it has been since 2003, when introduced. In an eventual reconciliation system, when, hopefully, it becomes the chief instrument in "a comprehensive social support system" in the hands of the Family Court, I don't think anything different is needed than that which is in practice today in other quarters outside the Family Court. This has to operate in an atmosphere of trust and understanding between the parties, generated by the reconciliator, within the boundaries of confidentiality.
It would be very unfair and disastrous to married couples in distress to be put on the path leading to the civil dissolution of their marriage, even more with a "no fault" approach in court, if, beforehand, they have not been offered marriage counselling and reconciliation services.
If things remain as they are today, marriage counselling and reconciliation services will not be provided by the court because in previous legislation on marital litigation in 2003, this is exactly what the government tried to do but did not succeed in doing. To my mind it will not succeed unless the government and the opposition join forces, as they have done to their credit on other issues, and notwithstanding any combative lobbying to the contrary enact legislation, as the Chief Justice very rightly pointed out, to provide these support instruments to the Family Court. May the lawmakers hear and act on his plea. The court can then start really helping litigating married couples in distress.
With this new development initiated by the Chief Justice, the Today Public Policy Institute (TPPI) would be giving a sterling service to Maltese society if it were to also enter into these aspects of marriage breakdown. In the process it could also mediate between the forces involved in marital litigation on a national level and be a catalyst of change in this direction.
May Mr Scicluna, this time, also carry out this very important exercise. He may begin by outlining his and other views on marriage counselling, mediation and reconciliation services in greater detail than he has done so far, and this also in the light of the new developments sparked by the Chief Justice and the President of the Chamber of Advocates (March 16) for support to any initiative that would strengthen the processes that help married couples in difficulties. Then he may start laying down the strategy, with the help of TPPI, to help Parliament enact legislation to really help all marital couples in distress.