I found our Kramer vs Kramer or Cassar vs Cassar saga – featuring a mother who was imprisoned for denying her ex-husband access to their son, and subsequently pardoned – disturbing on many levels.
If the powers that be genuinely believe that the pardon was correct, then they should have gone about changing the law the day after its promulgation- Michela Spiteri
The story, which was hijacked by the media and played to the gallery, incensed and upset me tremendously. But not for the reasons it apparently did everybody else.
Skewed reasoning, mostly female, ranged from ‘does this father really love his son, has he spared a thought for how his mother’s imprisonment is going to affect him for the rest of his life?’ to ‘how can a parent walk out on a child and expect to see the child at his or her convenience on allotted times and days?’
Parents don’t walk out on their children. Very rarely, it does happen, yes, but by and large, husbands leave their wives or vice- versa, and as a consequence, their marriages. Leaving a marriage is not tantamount to walking out on or abandoning your children. And children, above all, need to know and understand this.
Which is why acrid remarks and sweeping statements perpetuating these dangerous misconceptions, are particularly damaging, cruel and unfair – both to parents who are constrained to leave but especially to the children who are left behind.
Marriage breakdown invariably results in a parting of ways, with one spouse leaving the matrimonial home and one staying behind. There is no other way of breaking up unless you choose to live as de facto separated under the same roof, which could create a host of other problems, equally, if not more, traumatic, long term.
And yes, men generally do the leaving, because uprooting children and wives – who are ordinarily the primary custodians and carers – doesn’t augur well or make logistic sense. Where possible, stability is maintained and children and wives stay put.
As a result, women generally have the lion’s share of physical access. This is a double-edged sword. Because they are much more involved in their children’s lives and upbringing, they in turn become even more territorial and ‘jealous’ of their sovereignty.
It is women who normally deal with the trials and tribulations on a daily basis and who get to pick up the pieces of the domestic mess that is left behind.
It is they who sit through homework, parents’ day and ferry children here, there and everywhere. And deal with toothaches and throw-up, plan birthday parties, sleepovers, make mental notes and stretch themselves physically, mentally, emotionally and financially to try to cover all possible contingencies.
You see, raising children is not merely costly, it comes at a personal cost you can’t put a price tag on. One would think mothers would relish a break every now and then, but oddly enough, it usually works the other way round. The harder they work, the less likely they are to let go.
Which is why when men show up once or twice a week for their hour or two of ‘playtime’, many women are resentful. Parental alienation or rejection of the non-custodial parent is often a natural consequence of this resentment.
Children, even unconsciously, are made to feel they have to pick and choose whom to love more. And their loyalties usually lie with the custodial parent.
Often, women will deliberately restrict or condition access. And even when they don’t, children’s days are taken up by school, homework and extracurricular activities anyway. Men usually work long hours during the week. Which is why access is relegated to weekends.
As a rule of thumb, I find that men who maintain a level of respect across the board for mothers of their children – and yes, that also includes meeting financial obligations – have a much easier time accessing their children.
If you take a trip to court you will immediately notice a pattern. Men who repeatedly dodge maintenance payments are generally the ones who are denied access and given a harder time.
For although two wrongs don’t make a right and women are not legally permitted to withhold access on account of maintenance non-payments, we all know that money is the great leveller and compensates for many other shortcomings and deficiencies. And nobody knows this better than the courts.
That said, whatever hardships women face in the domestic arena, everyone ought to be equal before the law – men, women and children. If men (and occasionally women) get sent to jail for not meeting maintenance payments and if women (and men) are sent to jail for denying their spouses access, then, to my mind, no amount of show-boating should ever culminate in a presidential pardon.
And if the powers that be genuinely believe that the pardon was correct, then they should have gone about changing the law the day after its promulgation.
Instead, the pardon has boomeranged and Anna Cassar has come back to haunt the President, landing another petition on his lap.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There have been thousands of Maltese children who have suffered in silence because of parents who were made to do jail time as a result of identical charges – namely non-observance of civil law contracts.
No child who sees either of his parents imprisoned on account of similar charges can ever feel the punishment is entirely deserving or justified. Even the parties themselves are largely sceptical of the system and find themselves impotent and outraged before the law.
I distinctly recall a woman screaming at me because I won her case and sent her husband to jail in the process. And only a few days ago another client who has been systematically denied access to his son for six months, withdrew all charges against his son’s mother.
The law is definitely stuck between a rock and a hard place. You either risk sending the mother or father of your children to jail or you do absolutely nothing about it.
Or get Xarabank to take on your case pro bono.
michelaspiteri@gmail.com