Child Protection Bill proposes mandatory reporting, child protection register

National Commission for Development of Child Policy and Strategy calls for appointment of two judges solely responsible for child protection cases

A Child Protection Bill that was presented in the House of Representatives last April calls for a radical change in how care orders are issued and how child protection services pan out.

At the top of the list lies the shifting of the responsibility of a care order from the minister to the Family Court. Under current law, care orders for the protection of minors can only be issued and revoked by the relevant minister. The Bill also provides for an enhanced planning enforcement and an appeals procedure.

It introduces new concepts of mandatory reporting, a child protection register, permanent foster care, freeing children for adoption and shared parenting.

The Bill also provides for a choice of more than one type of order and the setting up of a Child Court Services. The latter in turn would see a Child Protection Service, a child advocate, a child protection mediator and a guardian.

The National Commission for Development of Child Policy and Strategy is also urging the government to appoint two judges whose sole responsibility would be cases related child protection.

The timeframes set by the Commission are ambitious: a hearing before the Family Court should be appointed within five working days from filing the application of a care order. The court should then give its decision within seven days from the date of the hearing.

The Family Court, the National Commission proposes, should have exclusive jurisdiction on matters relating to the issuing, reviewing and terminating a child protection order.

“Only judges should be responsible of child protection orders. Court sitting should be presided by a judge and the judge should be assisted by two members of the Child Care Advisory Group. The judges should receive specific training and should only be assigned child protection cases. All evidence should be heard personally by the judge, save for exceptional circumstances,” Commission chairwoman Ruth Vella said.

The Bill also provides the child with right to request a judicial interview where the judge hears the child in camera.

The appointment of the six members to the advisory group would be regulated by law, establishing the required qualifications.

Addressing a meeting of the parliament’s select committee on social affairs, Vella said that all records relating to the child protection process should be retained for at least 25 years.

Care orders have been in Malta since the mid-1980s and experience has taught practitioners and stakeholders that Child Care Proceedings should be undertaken in a court setting.

“Parents and children are not happy with the administrative system and have expressed wish for more contact and access to those responsible of the system. The children themselves expressed wish to be involved in the whole process,” Vella said.

Consultation held with the children also found calls for more stable placements and to remain in contact with their family especially their siblings.

The Bill also lays foundations for mandatory reporting by persons who come into contact with children. Whether on a voluntary of paid basis, a person who works with the children and comes to know of child abuse must now file reports.

“We suggest there should be fines for those who fail to make a report or even when malicious reports are filed,” Vella said.

The entity responsible of receiving reports should be the Child Protection Services and the Commission is also proposing the setting up of a Child Protection Register to keep track of reports filed.

In the case of child protection orders, the Commission is proposing five different types of orders: an emergency order valid for 15 days and can be renewed; a supervision order; a parental treatment order; a care order and a removal order.

In the case of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum, the Commission said that appropriate psycho-social care should be given to avoid further trauma. The court should also ensure that linguistic and cultural sensitivity is respected.

More importantly, the Commission is insisting that the Child Protection Services is pulled out of the FSWS and placed under the court’s responsibility.

“It doesn’t make sense that one day you have a person investigating the case and the same person is then asked to provide therapeutic services,” Vella said.

Welcoming the proposals of the Commission, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said the biggest constraint would be the implementation of the proposals. By way of example, Bonnici said appointing two judges just to listen to these cases came with additional costs.

“However, this does not mean that we give up but that we find ways on how to overcome these challenges. The second issue is the physical size of the Family Court. The government is currently in the process of negotiating a property next to the courts to maximize space,” he said.

Bonnici said that the current court building was “literally packed” to the point that no new members of the judiciary can be appointed because they had no space from where to operate.

The development of a building to serve as office space for the members of the judiciary will however open up new space at the Courts.

Bonnici suggested that such cases don’t necessarily need to be heard at the Valletta court building but pointed out that such a change would require the support of all stakeholders.

“Some of the proposals require a culture change and changes in work practices,” Bonnici said.