Politics is about people. It is about people’s lives and how these lives can be improved. So, if one person is suffering because of what we, as politicians, have done or failed to do, we must admit to having done too much or not enough.

The law needs amending where it comes to the distinction between a child and an adolescent- Helena Dalli

As I am writing this, there is at least one woman in prison for whose punishment we are partly to blame. By “we” I mean the lawmakers, since those judging the members of our society abide by the laws passed by Parliament.

But also, while the law is the law, our judges and magistrates also have room for discretion.

Many questions are raised when one reads the court report on the case of the mother imprisoned for three months because her son refused to visit his estranged father. But the recurring questions were: how is society gaining now that this woman is in prison? Should we continue to regard these cases as going against public order?

Also, what sense does it make to deal with an adolescent, who, of his own volition, refused to go to his father, as one would with an eight-year-old who has to be taken to see a parent and has no choice but to obey? Surely a 17-year-old would visit if he so wanted and no amount of bickering from the other parent would stop him from doing so.

The young man in question said that he was studying for his O levels and could not be bothered to visit his father. It transpires that the mother did not encourage the reluctant son to do so and for this was sent to prison.

And what has this solved? It has made matters worse. The son reportedly said that he is now even less willing to see his father. Also: “I was never scared of living with my mother nor felt threatened by her. If that were the case I’d go and visit my father now that my mother is in prison”.

I am the mother of a 17-year-old and there is no way I would get him to do something which he refuses to do. At that age, you realise that you are no longer parenting, certainly not in the way you had used the word in earlier years, but building what would come to be your adult relationship with your son.

It is the time for more freedom, recalcitrant behaviour and strange outbursts. You see your sweet young boy morphing into a moody adolescent to complement the physical changes and raging hormones.

How can a mother make a son of this age visit his father against his will, even if she wanted to? I, thus, empathise and appreciate that it is even harder for a woman to deal with this behaviour on her own.

The father has his story too and we must listen to it. I also empathise with him as he must be very hurt knowing that his son is not so keen on spending time with him. But put all the blame on the mother as though the adolescent boy has no will of his own? That is just not fair.

And what good does the father think the mother’s imprisonment will do? Does he think this situation will help him improve his already strained relationship with his son? Certainly, the sight of his handcuffed mother being whisked off to prison will leave an indelible mark in his mind, which image he links to his father.

The adolescent is saying that his mother shouldn’t be in prison. For him, definitely then, justice was not seen to have been done. I think that age is of the essence in this case. It is about an adolescent, on the cusp of adulthood who, at times, has to visit his father. Age must be taken into account and we must listen more to what the children – whatever their age, but even more so when they are old enough to think for themselves – have to say.

The law needs amending where it comes to the distinction between a child and an adolescent; they are both considered minors but in reality they are worlds apart. A 17-year-old knows what he wants: “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.”

According to the court judgment, “the mother’s excuse was that the husband extended access in an exaggerated manner, in any case there were occasions when the son did not want to visit his father”. But the mother gets penalised.

What’s more: “Undoubtedly, both parties have shown a lot of immaturity where it concerns their son”. So it is not just the mother.

An agreement settled in the presence of a mediator shows that access was left up to the absolute discretion of the “minor”. It was up to the son to decide and, thus, he was being treated as a mature person. He decided not to visit his father and his decision ought to have been respected.

This is why I consider this court decision as confusing and sending the wrong message to society. We should look at the law courts as being on the side of reason but in certain instances we have no choice but to give credence to the Maltese saying that “if you’re at fault, go to court”. Reason tells us that the will of the 17-year-old should have been respected.

Having said all this, the penalty is within the parameters of the law, which I will press to change. In the meantime, as a lawmaker, I assume part of the responsibility.

Maybe the President will deem it fit to intervene on behalf of this woman who might also lose her job, thus a double penalty.

The author is shadow minister for the public sector, government investments and gender equality.