Family Minister Michael Farrugia has come under heavy fire for his critique of foster carers and his quest to “simplify” the long-awaited Child Protection Bill, which had been agreed upon by both political parties under Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca’s ministry.

This is the second time Dr Farrugia has been embroiled in controversy related to fostering, after foster care team leader John Rolè was transferred from Aġenzija Appoġġ in January.

The Prime Minister then instructed Dr Farrugia to reinstate him.

Last week, Dr Farrugia told Times of Malta that he was still mulling the inclusion of permanent fostering in the Bill, explaining he was more inclined towards open adoption.

Open adoption is technically already allowed by existing laws but, in practice, very few fostered children are freed up for adoption.

Permanent fostering offers the much-needed peace of mind that came with a stable home and was one of the breakthrough clauses in the Bill that was given a first reading in Parliament in March 2014.

Three stakeholders speak to The Sunday Times of Malta.

Daniella Zerafa

Social policy and social work lecturer and foster carer.

It is clear that the minister’s position is not backed by what research and literature in the area indicate. This is very worrying when one considers his position and responsibility.

It is unacceptable to have the minister responding: “That is what you think...what you think is one thing and reality is another,” when the journalist brought up the issue of children being upset after access visits. What “reality” is he talking about? Has he ever lived with a child who returns to the foster home completely upset and re-traumatised because of what would have happened during the visit with his parents?

Has he ever lived with a child who returns to the foster home upset and re-traumatised

It seems that the minister is either not aware or is failing to recognise the complexities which are involved in the situations of most children who are fostered. Failing to recognise this complexity will lead to a legislation which may not primarily safeguard the rights of children.

As to the minister’s criticism towards foster carers who refuse adoption, when this happens there are complex reasons for it, and it is not at all easy in fact “to draw a conclusion” as the minister suggests. One cannot assume that all foster carers will be ready to adopt the child they are fostering. It is the minister’s responsibility to ensure that he has a system in place with clear time frames that indicate the point at which the adoption decision is taken. The minister’s position is full of generalisations and accusations which do not do any service to a sensitive sector where having all the stakeholders, including foster carers, working together is of utmost importance.

As an academic and also as a citizen, I would have expected more wisdom in the way the government dealt with the issue. Attacking foster carers will not provide a safer, stronger framework through which children will be offered the services they deserve.

Robert Cutajar

PN family spokesman.

What Dr Farrugia said in his interview clearly shows that he is completely cut off from what is happening in the sector.

It is worrying that what was tabled by former minister Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca – which had garnered wide consensus, including by the government – is now being discredited by Dr Farrugia, who was part of the Cabinet at the time. More serious is the fact that it was left on the shelf for over a year.

I am sure there are parents and foster carers who were irritated and hurt by the minister’s words.

Dr Farrugia’s comments demonstrated a lack of respect towards foster carers.

The way he phrased certain retorts clearly shows that he is completely ignoring experts in the field. The tabled law protected the children’s best interests.

Permanent fostering is a way to provide them with stability within a family environment.

The Opposition agrees with what was originally proposed in the first reading and will be reacting in Parliament.

Ruth Farrugia

Family law expert who drafted original Bill.

I regret that I am not privy to the amendments being proposed by the ministry or the reason for the need for any amendments.

The inclusion of the concept of permanent foster care may appear a misnomer as foster care is usually temporary, but the Maltese reality we consulted with seems to demand this very specific response, particularly for children who still have and need regular ties with their birth family while being cared for in a foster family.

The open adoption model currently available is insufficient and there were clearly indicated plans to carry on consultation about adoption in the next phase of the drafting of the Children Act.

One marked innovation of the Child Protection Bill is that it is the result of substantial and extensive consultation with children and appropriate adults so any changes should also be mindful of this and be reflected through further consultation.