Father charged with child cruelty

The father of an 11-year-old boy has been released on bail this morning after he was charged with child cruelty and slightly injuring his son in what he claimed were displays of affection.

Magistrate Charmaine Galea heard Inspector Joseph Busuttil explain how the man had been arrested, after child protection services had contacted the police following a report by the child’s guidance teacher.

The court was told that the accused, who cannot be named, had been involved in “turbulent” separation proceedings with the boy’s mother for 10 years.

Inspector Busuttil explained that the minor had started opening up to his guidance teacher over a two-year period. While the inspector stressed that no sexual offences had taken place, the boy had told his teacher that the accused would act aggressively towards the child, sometimes holding him down, other times covering the boy’s mouth and preventing him from breathing until he panicked. There was medical evidence that indicated the boy had almost been suffocated, the inspector submitted.

The police had been told that on one occasion, the accused had thrown the son’s bag out of the car because he had told off his father for using his mobile phone while driving. On another day the boy had been locked out in the balcony on purpose.

The father had also once “held the boy down and licked his face and belly,” the inspector said, adding that this had distressed the child so much that he had vomited.

Inspector Busuttil recalled that the accused had explained to the police that these were “aggressive games” that he would play with his son, but also pointed out that the child was scared of having to face his father. The prosecution objected to bail until the minor could be summoned to testify.

The accused had said that the boy had been “brainwashed” by his mother, the inspector said, but when asked, the mother had been unaware of the incidents.

Defence lawyer David Farrugia Sacco entered a plea of not guilty for the accused and requested bail. He confirmed that the accused had been in separation proceedings of 10 years and did not see eye to eye with the mother. The relationship between them was “certainly not cordial” but it was not aggressive, argued the defence.

Farrugia Sacco pointed out that the police had been notified by Appogg and not the mother. “I am convinced that had I been working for Appogg I would have done the same. The report was made out of fear that the behaviour could have been related to sex abuse. You can’t take chances in such cases,” he said, but reminded the court that the inspector himself had said that there is no sexual aspect to the charges.

The lawyer said he didn’t want to play down the “energetic exchanges”, but the request for bail had to be seen in context.

“In no way is the mother going to let the father see the child if he is granted bail because their relationship had disintegrated to that extent,” said Farrugia Sacco. As soon as the mother is informed of what happened, he expects her to file a court application to block his access to the son.

Even if the boy or his mother had been overreacting, the accused had to put their wrongdoings to one side and accept that he was not to contact them.

“The court is ultimately to decide whether the father’s behaviour was excessive. That children play rough with their fathers is a given, but the court is to examine whether this behaviour exceeded acceptable limits,” Farrugia Sacco submitted. “This is not a case of sexual abuse or beating. It is a case where the boy is saying he is unhappy with the father’s behaviour.”  The man’s continued detention was not justified by that, he argued.

Farrugia Sacco submitted that preventive custody would be an extreme measure and that it would be in the accused’s interest to rebuild his relationship with the son. “If the versions told by the accused and the boy are both in perfect agreement, only the question of whether the actions are criminal remains.”

Despite prosecution’s objections, the court granted the man bail against a deposit of €500 and a personal guarantee of €5,000, on condition that he keep his distance from and not speak to prosecution witnesses. He was also ordered to sign a bail book daily.

A protection order in favour of the son was also issued.