Court overturns conviction over child access dispute

A woman who had been convicted for denying access to her child has been cleared on appeal, after the Court of Appeal found that the original decree governing access did not specify the location where the visits had to take place, and therefore she had not disobeyed a court order.

The case concerned a woman who had been found guilty in 2024 of preventing the child’s father from exercising access on two occasions in August 2018.

The Court of Magistrates had sentenced her to one week in detention, ruling that she had refused access without adequate reason.

She appealed, arguing she had not refused access outright, but had objected to the locations selected by the father, Mellieħa and Ħal Far, which she said were impractical to reach in time after work, given that supervised access had to start at specific hours.

At the time, access was being supervised by Appoġġ.

The social worker testified that, as a matter of agency practice, the father was asked to choose the venue.

The father would choose places convenient to him, including his mother’s care home in Mellieħa, and insisted on them even when the mother suggested alternatives

However, the Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge Edwina Grima, noted that the Civil Court (Family Section) decree regulating access only stated that the visits must take place outside the Appoġġ building, and did not indicate who had the right to choose the location or where visits should occur.

The court said this lack of clarity had left the parents, already locked in what it described as “continuous tension”, to interpret the arrangements in a way that best suited their own position.

The father insisted on faraway locations; the mother said these were impossible to reach in time, and offered alternatives. The result was a stalemate.

The court stressed disagreements about logistics should have been brought back to the Family Court for guidance, rather than left to the parents to battle out informally.

It also disagreed with the first court’s assessment of credibility. The fact that the woman had faced similar charges in the past, the court said, could not in itself justify assuming guilt in this case, and there was no evidence she was refusing access in principle.

Because the decree did not specify that access had to be carried out in the particular locations chosen by the father, the Court of Appeal held that the criminal offence of refusing access was not made out.

It therefore revoked the conviction and cleared the woman of all guilt and punishment.

The case was prosecuted on behalf of the Attorney General by lawyer Martina Muscat.

Lawyer Vince Galea appeared for the appellant while lawyer Leontine Calleja appeared for the parte civile.