The 10-year-old girl who a few days ago had her wish to stay in Malta granted by a judge will be sent back to the UK as the Attorney General and the Department for Social Welfare Standards won their appeal against the ruling this morning.
In their judgment on the appeal, judges Giannino Caruana Demajo, Joseph Zammit McKeon and Robert Mangion revoked the finding that Ella’s right to respect for family life was violated.
Ella Bridge had convinced 57-year-old Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi that she was happy with her father, Richard, and had settled down in Malta.
In their judgment, the judges said Mr Bridge’s family rights were not the only ones involved and the court had to balance the rights of all interested parties, including those of the mother who instigated the proceedings because her own family rights had been interfered with.
When the decision to abduct the child was taken, no regard was had the to the mother’s right to a fair hearing and to respect for her family life, they said.
The judges said that although the court was not one of criminal jurisdiction and it was not its task to penalise Mr Bridge, however, in balancing the rights of parties it could not use the argument that the parent who, by his actions, had opened himself to criminal prosecution could, for that very purpose, be preferred to the parent who, in a way, was also a victim of those actions.
“Moreover, the fact that the child’s best interests are paramount, and it has now been determined that the child’s interests are best protected by her return in compliance with a Hague Convention, should surely be relevant also in this context, and should not be put aside because the father took the law into his own hands and is now fearing the consequences.”
The court said it appreciated Mr Bridge’s desire to accompany his daughter when she is returned to England.
It also appreciated that this would entail serious inconveniences.
However, the requirement of mutual trust between the courts of different member states led this court to believe that the judicial system of the courts of the country of residence would not impose unreasonable and unnecessary hardships, in view also of the interests of the child.
The presence of the child and both parents in the proper jurisdiction would expedite the final settlement of the custody issue and the matter of the child’s future place of residence.
“It will be in the interest of all concerned that this be done according to law and not by unilateral action of one or other of the parties,” they concluded.
The case goes back to 2010 when Mr Bridge and Ella’s biological mother, Niki Lee, divorced in the UK. Mr Bridge came to Malta with his family intending to settle here but, within days of him leaving, Ms Lee started legal proceedings to have Ella returned.
On October 20, 2010, a UK court issued an order of wrongful removal of the child. The director of Social Welfare Standards started proceedings against Mr Bridge in Malta in terms of the International Convention on International Child Abduction.
The law provided that decisions concerning children had to be taken by the court of the country where the child would normally live, not by the court of the country to which the abducting parent had taken them. In May 2011, the Family Court upheld the director’s request and ordered Ella to be removed to the UK.
Mr Bridge appealed the judgement but his appeal was filed two days late and was dismissed. He then resorted to the Constitutional Court, claiming a breach of the girl’s fundamental rights on grounds that she had not been heard.