'Cruel' mother has no right to appeal care order over her two daughters

A mother convicted of being cruel to her daughters did not have her rights violated when she was denied access to the courts following a care order issued on the children, the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday.

The mother - whose name is not being published to protect the identity of her daughters - had filed a constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court.

She told the court that in 2005 the Ministry for Social Policy had issued a care order for her two minor daughters who were placed in an institute run by nuns. The order was issued after the mother and her partner were both found guilty of cruelty to the girls. The mother was given a suspended sentence and her partner was jailed for two years.

In her application, the mother claimed she had ended her relationship with her partner and wished to have her daughters live with her again. Her circumstances had changed and the care order was, therefore, no longer necessary.

However, despite her requests to this effect to the ministry, the care order still stood.

She asked the court to declare that the law governing care orders violated her rights to a fair hearing once it did not give her access to an independent and impartial tribunal to seek the revocation of the care order.

The First Hall of the Civil Court upheld her request but the Attorney General appealed to the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph Filletti and Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia.

The Constitutional Court said that, since the mother had been found guilty of cruelty to her children and had been given a suspended sentence, certain provisions of the Criminal Code came into effect in her regard. As a result, the mother lost all parental authority and all her rights over her children. This was an automatic consequence that did not even have to be imposed by the Criminal Court in its judgment against the mother.

The mother had, therefore, lost all authority over her daughters even before she filed her constitutional application. She could not have filed her constitutional application on behalf of her daughters because once the care order was issued the children were in the custody of the Social Policy Minister.

Referring to the mother's allegation about not being given access to the courts to ask for the revocation of the care order, the Constitutional Court ruled that access was always to be had to the courts for a decision on civil rights and obligations or in criminal cases. The court had, therefore, to decide whether the mother had any right or duty that had to be determined at the time she filed her constitutional application. However, as the court had already established, after the mother had been given a suspended sentence she had lost all her authority and rights over her children. She could vaunt no claim in their regard.

The Constitutional Court ruled that there was no violation of the mother's right to a fair hearing and it revoked the first court's judgment.