A father’s bid to have his eight-year-old daughter returned to Canada from where he claimed the mother “abducted” her has been turned down by a judge who ruled it would be more traumatic for the child.

“The court believes that it would be more detrimental for the child if it were to order her return to Canada to be alone with her father than remain in Malta with her mother and the rest of her family and friends,” Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro said.

She was ruling in a case filed by the Canadian Central Authority through the Maltese Department for Social Welfare Standards to have the child returned to her biological father in Canada.

The court heard how the child was born in 2006 and four years later the relationship between the parents hit the rocks. The couple separated in May 2010 and in September the father gave his consent for the mother and child to fly to Malta for 75 days. They never returned.

The father contacted the mother who told him she wanted to remain in Malta. Further attempts to communicate with her failed.

In January 2011, the father filed a case with the Canadian Central Authority, which began legal proceedings to have the child returned to Ontario. But the process encountered a hurdle because the separation contract did not specify the father had custody of the child so the Maltese authorities could not continue processing the application. According to international conventions, custody is a prerequisite for an abduction claim to stand.

Meanwhile, the father obtained a decree from a Canadian court that the child was being held in Malta “illicitly” and the application for the return of the child then continued.

The mother, who in April 2012 won a custody battle for the child, told the court she left Canada because the father was an alcoholic, was addicted to cannabis and rarely spent any quality time with his daughter.

Madam Justice Lofaro also heard the girl’s teacher and school headmistress testify that she was doing very well at school, had managed to integrate with her school friends and had “settled”.

“It is not the role of the court to choose which of the two parents is better but more to determine what is in the child’s best interest. What the court must establish is whether the child was abducted,” the court said in its judgment.

The judge said that once the separation contract did not mention anything about custody, it is obvious that both parents had joint custody.

She added that the woman’s version that the child was not abducted as she had been bought to Malta with the father’s consent “did not hold water” as the decision to remain in Malta did not have the father’s approval. Neither did he have a say when the mother changed the girl’s habitual place of residence.

Madam Justice Lofaro noted how it was only in July 2013 that the court case for the child’s return was filed, two-and-a-half years after she was brought to Malta.

Moreover, it was amply proven that the child had now settled in the new environment.

Madam Justice Lofaro turned down the request.

Lawyers Veronique Dalli and Dean Hili appeared for the mother.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.