‘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.