Family Crimes

Alison Bezzina

Oct 7th 2012, 09:31

@ Joseph
Perhaps you should have a better understanding of human nature. Whilst I too have no doubt that your comment is done in good faith, unless you were personally involved in this case you know as much as I do about it (if at that). This is a statement from the now almost 18 year old son :

“My mother never stopped me from seeing my father; I should be able to visit my father of my own free will and in my own time, not be forced to spend four hours on Friday and another four on Sunday,” .

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20121007/local/-My-mother-should-not-be-in-prison-.439897

Emanuel Curmi

Oct 12th 2012, 14:58

So what has stopped the boy from do so in his own free time and will. The mother or the law? The inflexibility of the law is hardly dictated by the father but can be easily manipulated by the prime guardian of the boy, which in this case is the mother.
As is the case in such situations, the rigidity of the rules are being exploited by both parents. So which parent is right?

Alison Bezzina

Oct 2nd 2012, 09:48

@ Sean

I'd like to clarify that I did not base my judgement on a journalist's story but on the Court's report - the final statement that is seven pages long and explains what the Judge considered and heard before taking a decision.

Whilst it might still be the case that the whole story still does not come through from this report, it is the best source of info on the matter. As I explained below to Mr. Cassar, journalists cannot base their articles only on things that they experience first hand, otherwise we wouldn't have any media to speak of.

In either case, even if the mother was guilty 101%, considering that the son is going to be an adult in a few months time, I honestly thing that jail should have been avoided, if not for anything else, in order not to continue to gravitate the situation, the relationship between the two parents, and the son's perception of the dad.

Sam Cutajar

Oct 6th 2012, 13:41

You are also assuming that the mother brainwashed the child! When do children become adults so that they can make their own decision as to weather they wish to spend time with the mother or the father for that matter? The law establishes the age of eighteen for one to become an adult. I have known older people that still act as children and younger people that act more responsible than any adult. I see the poor mother as a sacrificial lamb. She was punished because she did not drag her child to see his father. I will ask if the court would have punished the mother for child abuse if she had dragged the child against his will to see his father.

Ms. P.M Graham

Sep 30th 2012, 18:08

Was your son given the chance to testify? With the greatest of respect Mr Cassar comments can only be made on the information given in the editorial and it does seem odd that your son's take on the matter wasn't taken into either consideration or mentioned in the said editorial.

Now on the other hand if your ex wife has used your son as a tool, in fact if either of you has done so, then that is wrong, because at the end of the day as hard as it is to do, we have to do what is best for our children and put our own emotions on the back burner.

Mario Grech

Oct 1st 2012, 08:24

If it's true that the son Daniel never testified it's even more worrying. How can a Judge decide to send a mother to jail for three months without hearing the son's point of view, when the crux of the matter is whether it was his choice not to visit the dad or not.

In cases where the children are much younger some Judges take kids in their chambers to hear them out, why wouldn't a 16 / 17 year old be heard?

But then again, it is hard to believe that a mother can stop a teenager from doing anything, let alone something his dad supports.

Alison Bezzina

Oct 1st 2012, 16:31

@Raymond Cassar

whilst I sympathize with your situation, it is impractical to expect journalists and bloggers to only write about their own experiences. If that was the case we'd know nothing about nothing...and the whole idea of a free media wouldn't exist.

In this case the court's own statement is the best piece of information that one can base a judgement, and these are direct abstracts from the Court’s Final Statement :

“Mid-depozizzjonijiet li taw l-appellanti U BINHA DANIEL quddiem l-ewwel Qorti irrizult illi l-minuri li dak iz-zmien kellu sittax il-sena, minhabba r-relazzjoni xejn tajba ma missieru u minhabba li pprefera jistudja ......

Kien sar ftehim quddiem il-medjatur Godwin Genoveze illi mix-xahar ta’ Dicembru, 2010 saxxahar
ta’ Frar, 2011, l-access thalla fid-diskrezzjoni assoluta tal-minuri kif u meta jigi ezercitat l-access. Ilmedjatur
kien irrimarka illi l-minuri kellu jigi trattatt ta’ persuna matura u li kellu jiddeciedi wahdu. Il-minuri
ddecieda kif iddecieda u d-decizjoni tieghu ghandha tigi rispettata.”

Noel Cutajar

Oct 1st 2012, 20:59

@ Alison Bezzina

You got the facts totally wrong. What you quoted is the appeal filed by the defence lawyer and not what the Court said...please get the facts right before or at least read the first page and you will notice that the Court was only quoting the appeal before entering into the merits of the case.

Alison Bezzina

Oct 2nd 2012, 10:05

@ Noel

The Court's Statement is the best piece of info that you can base an opinion on because it is a summary of the prosecution's and defense's arguments made throughout the case. Whilst I fully aware that I was quoting the defense arguments, I don't think that the defense wouldn't rope in an imaginary mediator and mention him by name, if that mediation had never happened.

Noel Cutajar

Oct 3rd 2012, 08:37

Mediators cannot be brought as witnesses in a court case to state what has been said during the proceedings.