A mother who failed to adhere to a custody order and hand her 16-year-old son over to his father was yesterday jailed for three months on appeal.

The woman, who is not being named to protect the identity of her son, had filed an appeal against the jail term after the judgment was handed down in June last year.

She argued that if her son, who was a sixth-former then and is now 18, chose not to see his father, then that was his own decision.

“What could the mother have done? Grab a 16-year-old by his hair and put him inside her car and hand him over to his father,” her lawyer asked in the appeal.

The first court had not made a distinction between a five-year-old boy and a young man, he argued.

The refusal of the teenager to see his father had been interpreted by the court as his mother refusing to grant her former husband access. It would have humiliated the young man, who was mature, educated and could exercise his own discretion, to force him to do something against his will, the lawyer said.

In his testimony, the father complained that his former wife was constantly creating problems when it came to visiting his son and he would sometimes not see him for six months.

On the 13 occasions that his son failed to turn up, he could not communicate with him and when he was meant to see him on Christmas Day, he had to get the police involved just to do so.

The father explained that in the separation contract with his wife, the only exception to being granted access was when his son had exams. But his mother was using this as an excuse even when he had a mere test.

Taking the witness stand, the mother said she abided by the contract and did what she was supposed to do, such as not letting the boy see his father when the exams were on. She said these cases were a result of the father instigating problems, which was making the separation very difficult.

Mr Justice Michael Mallia said the parents should be ashamed of themselves for taking from 1994 to 2007 to finalise the separation contract.

“There is no doubt that, here, the parties showed great immaturity towards their son by letting their emotions and their personal interests trump the interests of their son. It remains to be seen what effect this irresponsible behaviour of the parents will have on their son in the future,” the judge said.

As regards the punishment, Mr Justice Mallia said the Appeals Court did not usually disturb the original judgment especially if it was within the parameters of the law. He confirmed the original judgment.

Lawyers Robert Abela and Albert Zerafa appeared for the father.