‘Delete adultery from Civil Code’ plea
Opposition spokesman on justice José Herrera on Tuesday called on the government to delete the word “adultery” in the relevant sections of the Code, claiming that as things stood, the government was exercising a subtle censorship. Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said “adultery” was used as a legal definition and it was not meant to be demeaning.
Dr Herrera and the minister were contributing to the debate in second reading of the Civil Code (Amendment) Bill which provides new mechanisms regarding the determination by the courts of paternity of children.
Dr Herrera said the opposition agreed fully with the amendments as these bring legislation in line with modern systems. However, both sides of the House should do something to decrease the percentage of single parents declaring the father of their child as “unknown”.
He said that this was a highly unsatisfactory social situation in Malta and called for greater attention on behalf of social agencies and authorities when giving advice to these single parents to declare that they did not know who the father was. He felt such social workers were looking only at the financial position of the mother insofar as social services were concerned.
At the same time, single mothers should not be penalised but anomalies in the law had to be dealt with.
Clarification had to be given by the government regarding which court would deal with these cases. The Bill declared that the Family Court in its voluntary jurisdiction had to deal with the cases when the Family Court did not usually work with voluntary jurisdiction.
Dr Herrera agreed fully with giving right to mothers to declare the paternity of the child. He proposed the abrogation of the present clause of the Civil Code which dealt with the fact that no one could contest the status of a child who was born in wedlock.
Another thing which had to be dealt with was the question of children born to separated spouses where the husband’s name continued to be included in birth certificate of a child whose biological father was the women’s partner. This was wrong.
On DNA profiling, Dr Herrera said judges should be given the authority to order such tests which could be carried out in Malta and were not that expensive.
A fine balance had been struck between the six month term and the voluntary jurisdiction of the family court on when a filiation case could be instituted. He agreed on the clause regarding the use of the surname.
Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that agreement between both sides on the Bill meant that the courts could register progress on this issue.
He referred to cases where birth certificates were registered under “father unknown”. This was a complex issue. Mechanisms were now being introduced enabling unknown fathers to claim paternity. There were different situations why mothers declared that the child’s father was unknown. No mother was happy in not having the father of the child recognising his paternity. The Bill did not deal with the issue of unknown fathers.
The Bill was going to eliminate the prejudice surrounding issues of children born in and out of wedlock. A mechanism had been set up to establish the paternity of the biological father. In such cases, children always suffered because of the trauma. Children had a right to know who their real parents were.
As regards the cases being held in the First Hall of the Civil Court or in the Family Court, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that it was important to shelter confidentiality from the general public.
He concluded that the Maltese courts delivered many difficult judgments which responded to society’s present needs with regards to the family. He said that he had full trust in the Maltese courts.
The Bill was unanimously approved.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
12 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
B. Cassar
Nov 17th 2011, 16:57
mr Zammit was right, people had only misunderstood him becase he did not explained himself well. it is true in the civil code we clearly find that to be granted a personal seperation you need to plead on a particular ground, one of these grounds is the term 'adultery', but in the meanwhile it does not mean that there has to be adultery in every case there are other grounds where the spouses may plead on.
Jimmy Magro
Oct 28th 2010, 12:24
A very interesting discussion but for us the taxpayers the most important aspect is that we should not be burdened by the mistakes of the few (or the many as now we have 25% of births as single mother births).
To make things worse, we have learned that Mater Dei Hospital has witnessed one more than one fight between men claiming maternity of the newly born child and the hospital has been obliged to employ more security guards. Mater Dei looks like a fort rather than a hospital.
It is also understood that during the christening of the newly born, the father is present in Church. Thus everyone knows who the father is.
Whatever social belief one has, no one should accept abuse of our welfare system and drastic action must be taken by all civil servants, including those working in the social sector. The state cannot continue to be a charity institution and those that decide to co-habitate or be single mothers must make their own calculations for their own actions.
Raymond Sammut
Oct 28th 2010, 16:16
Two dumb men quarreling over the newly born baby should be a thing of the past. I was reading just today on another site that within the next 10 years, DNA profiling of the entire genome of the baby would be readily available and cost effective. That's the entire genome; that is, the parents would have a complete bill on the health, novel features and constitution of their baby --thanks to DNA sequencing technology that is presently being rapidly sharpened.
Joe Zammit
Oct 28th 2010, 12:18
The term 'adultery' cannot be completely eliminated from our civil code because it will always remain a ground for separations.
Raymond Sammut
Oct 28th 2010, 15:48
It has now been accepted practice within family law worldwide that "adultery" is not an admissible term in a court setting. The term is obscene, repugnant and most of all contravenes basic human rights.
Grounds for separation are based mainly on the term "separation" and on the interest of children when these are present. What is considered by the family court are the length and the genuine nature of separation. What the two parties do in their private life is nobody's business.
Mr Zammit: no-one has the right to tell people to tell what they do in their private life. You go and mind your own business like everybody else. You have rights in regard to your religious beliefs, but people also have rights to privacy in their day-to-day life. Dr Mifsud Bonnici, as the Minister of Justice in Malta, has the obligation --and should show the decency-- to remove the unacceptable term from Malta's Civil Code. He needs to eradicate it completely if Malta is to be considered among the civilized nations.
Joseph Calleja
Oct 28th 2010, 18:07
@ Joe Zammit
It also remains grounds for Divorce. What is this world coming to? LOL. JZ divorce is here to stay. Divorce is a cure for abused spouses. Divorce protects spouses who have to deal with adultery. Divorce is a cure for domestic violence. Divorce is a cure for child abuse. Divorce is a cure for a failed marriage!
P. Borg
Oct 29th 2010, 07:43
Yes Mr. Zammit. Wherever there is adultery the couple should separate. You, that preach so much about marriage should know that on the day of the marriage the couple promise to be faithful to each other through the good and the bad. In adultery that promise is broken therefore they should part. Why the heck do you want to stick with superglue whatever has been broken in million pieces? I must say that you are one of those people who likes to see married couples hand in hand for the eyes of people no matter that in reality they don't even share the table where they have dinner on. This is total hypocrisy. If one of the partners is unfaithful it means that there isn't love for the other part, therefore there's no valid reason why they should stay together. Maltese say "min jitwieled tond ma jmutx kwadru" u min jaghmilha darba jerga jaghmilha mitt darba. I have a question for you. Do you want to live in a perfect life for the eyes of others while inside you are broken and dying? No good sensed person would do that therefore whatever you say is non sense.
S. Vassallo
Oct 29th 2010, 07:50
JZ It is not divorce that is evil but adultery. Every responsible person should fight against adultery, pornography and so on and not against divorce. That would be an acceptable argument not your comments. You are wrong expecting that a person should accept to her man to be with another woman or vice versa. Don't you have respect for the vows stated on the altar?????
Christine Galea
Oct 28th 2010, 09:32
"Opposition spokesman on justice José Herrera on Tuesday called on the government to delete the word “adultery” in the relevant sections of the Code, claiming that as things stood, the government was exercising a subtle censorship".
Should we refrain from calling a spade, a spade?
Raymond Sammut
Oct 28th 2010, 10:25
Calling it a "spade", or whatever one would want to call it, would mean that somebody is not minding their own business. In principle, what happens between a married couple is nobody's business. The only thing which is at issue within the family court is whether the marriage is still or is no longer tenable. The Maltese Justice Minister is in error to think that it is acceptable to use the term for legal purposes. The term is simply anachronistic, demeaning and deplorable --whether used in court or wherever.
Ramon Casha
Oct 28th 2010, 10:28
Ah but Maltese spades are, in fact, not spades.
With divorce being unavailable to couples, "adultery" merely means that a man or woman is sleeping with his/her real partner rather than the person listed at the public registry.
martin saliba
Oct 28th 2010, 17:53
yes why not call a spade a spade . There is annulment where the church gets paid and is an option for the chosen few who most if the time lie and say that they want an anullment because one of them dose not want children and there is divorce where lawyers get paid and is an option for all. Which one do you prefer ?