The father of a four-year-old boy currently locked in a separation battle against his Filipino wife has filed a judicial protest claiming that various shortcomings in the proceedings before the Family Court were jeopardising his right to family life.

The 55-year-old man, who allegedly suffers from a medical condition which bars him from having a regular job, claimed he was ordered by the Family Court to pay €450 monthly in maintenance to his wife and son.

After contesting this excessive amount in view of the fact that his estranged wife was earning a living, the sum was reduced to €300 which was still above the €250 rate normally granted in favour of each child.

In his judicial act, filed before the First Hall of the Civil Court, the man also claimed that following an incident with his wife, the Appoġġ social agency was called in and he was granted a once-weekly access to his son under supervision.

The plaintiff claimed that once Appoġġ was called into a case, the parties were subjected to exaggerated delays and unnecessary expenses which resulted in greater hardship for the parties involved. In this particular case, the court was told that social workers' failure to report to the family court had resulted in his continued subjection to supervised access.

The court was also asked to note that the plaintiff's estranged wife was in reality no longer residing at the social shelter in Sta Venera, although she persisted in citing it as her formal residence. Moreover, the director of the said shelter was allowing this abuse.

For this reason, the plaintiff said he had no idea where his son was actually residing, the court was told. Formal requests put before the family court were allegedly dismissed without the parties having been granted a verbal hearing.

The plaintiff pointed out that the situation was violating his right to family life which was safeguarded by the European Convention of Human Rights as well as by the Constitution.

"It is unacceptable for a father, who never experienced any problems with his son, to be barred from knowing where his child is being brought up."

Lawyer Edward Gatt signed the judicial protest.

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.