Hawn Malta ghandna tezor ghax m'ghandniex id-divorzju

Published: July 21, 2010 at 12:41pm

timesofmalta.com, this morning

Jail term against mother revoked

A week’s jail term imposed against a mother for not handing her sons to her estranged husband in terms of arrangements for access has been revoked on appeal.

The woman had been accused and convicted for not turning up in Hamrun to hand over her two sons to her husband in terms of a marriage separation contract.

In her appeal, the woman pleaded that she could not turn up for an appointment with her husband for valid reasons in terms of law.

The court observed that tension between the woman and her estranged husband had remained high and this was having a traumatic effect on the children, aged 11 and 16. They were refusing to have contact with their father. Although their mother regularly took them to the agreed place so that they could meet their father, the meetings had ended up being an exchange of a few words which were sometimes not complimentary by the children towards their father. The children also refused to go with their father,

In this particular instance, the woman, some three hours before her appointment, sent an SMS to her husband telling him that she would not turn up with the children, but gave no reasons.

The husband turned up and then filed a police report.

The court said that while the woman could have given reasons to her husband, her reason was legally valid since she had been suffering a serious eye infection for two days and had been ordered by her doctor not to go out.

The court therefore upheld the appeal and revoked the prison sentence.




47 Comments Comment

  1. Alan says:

    Good lord; if they were divorced, matters may have been much worse. They may actually have come to blows – god forbid, rodd is-slaleb and all that.

  2. Cannot Resist Anymore says:

    Daphne, did you miss the court judgement yesterday of the notorious Bajjada’s of The Adam (and Steve) brothel in Paceville?

    I notice that Eve Bajjada, the English wife who roots for the Malta Labour Party all over the internet, has been silent for quite some time now.

    [Daphne – Of course I didn’t miss it.
    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100720/local/man-convicted-of-running-a-brothel ]

  3. kev says:

    Jail term for not showing up, eh… imnalla kellha rijzin, miskina.

    Qed insiru sivilajzd bhall-Emerikeni, ara. L-aqwa li ghandna l-Qorti tal-Familja based on the Inquisitorial model of doing justice.

    • Leonard says:

      Veru kev. Case in point – il-bierah kont ma shabi qed nara t-team favorit tieghi jilghab loghba football kontra team Amerikan. Wahda Ingliza harget daqsxejn mill-grupp u spiccat arrestata ghax qalet xi haga ftit pastaza (imma b’cajta) u ghamlet zewg mossi tas-soltu lejn xi erba’ Amerikani.

      Ghalxejn ippruvat tfhiemhom li din parti mill-culture tal-football Ingliz, li dan il-banter bejn is-supporters hu part & parcel mill-gost tal-loghba u li kieku nimxu hekk nispiccaw bi grounds vojta. Sahansitra ghamlu search fuq il-“Most Wanted” list biex jaraw kenitx hemm. Fl-ahhar spiccat “helset” b’ban milli tixtri tickets on-line.

      • kev says:

        That’s nothing compared to what is going on. Just search youtube: ‘police brutality’ – they even taser old people for minor ‘suspicious behaviour’, they manhandle people just for asking questions, they shoot at pet dogs, they arrest 12-year olds… the list is endless. And it is not a matter of a few ‘bad apples’ – they are being trained to act like demi-gods. It is just a prelude of what is to come towards the collapse of the USA.

      • Harry Purdie says:

        Hey Kevvy. So the Americans are now emulating the tactics of the former Soviets? They’ve done that for years. Still seem to be going strong. Watch your back, the CIA are everywhere. On the other hand, don’t bother, you’re not important.

      • ciccio2010 says:

        Kev, I see you forgot to attach the link to the next video episode, this time on how the United Soviet States of America’s plan to take over the world will collapse in two years.
        You know what, the Empire is still going strong. Oil and reserves are still under control in the Middle East, and piplines in Central Asia, including the ones through the Afghanistan poppy fields, are on schedule. And now there are some oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico belonging to BP (big profits, bankruptcy possible) that will soon be bought cheaply by an American oil giant. The dollar is still the world’s reserve currency, while Euro takes a battering. And Goldman Sucks (GS) continues to play the Greedy Speculator (also abbreviated to GS), on the Euro for now, maybe the Chinese Yuan later (once its recent uncoupling from the US dollar after pressure by the US government). Those poor results for GS last week were part of the political convenience of this pre-election moment.
        Kev, keep dreaming. Don’t tell me you are seeing Obama leading the next perestroika or glasnost in 2012?

      • kev says:

        What a load of trash, Ciccio. The type that shows you really, but truly, are not understanding anything of what’s going on. I know your world view very well, Ciccio. That is why I’m being honest when I say: I don’t know where to start.

      • kev says:

        Here Ciccio, just one aspect from many – this is a case against quantitative easing and ‘stimuli’ (the printing of money, creation of credit out of thin air); in other words, it is a case against further inflating our paper-money supply:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7909432/The-Death-of-Paper-Money.html

        It might help you square the circle in your head.

      • ciccio2010 says:

        Kev, if I understand well, the article deals with the threat to our money from hyper-inflation, and how Germans were left with worthless paper from hyper-inflation.
        Now that is absolutely no news to me. At the time of the crisis, when governments were shoving the bad assets of the banks onto the public debt, I was one of the first to argue in my circles that all this debt can be resolved through a period of hyperinflation. The same applies to private debt.
        I think the article just confirms my thoughts on this – mind you, it does not mean that this will necessarily happen – it is one possibility.
        But I remember also that I mentioned this to you on this blog, a few weeks ago. On the subject of Malta’s national debt, which you quantified at Euro 50,000 per family of 4 (if I remember well), I said that this will be wiped away with high inflation (call it hyperinflation?). But you opposed my argument.
        Kev, we have had high inflation in asset prices in the past 10 years – I am sure you know that. And we have just had that bubble burst – the financial crisis. I recently showed you that in the UK (but this was typical of Europe) the price of homes rose at 10% p.a. circa in the period before the burst of the bubble. Now, did you and me get more than, at max, 4 or 5% p.a. return in interest on our deposits in the banks? No. Was that the way the economy should have worked? No. It did not pay you and me to save, but to borrow and buy one, two, three or more houses as an “investment” because their return was higher.
        I do not exclude another bubble – this is the way the economy goes. There is an important difference, however. The world now has better technical capacity to meet demand for certain goods (e.g. cars) and services than Germany in the 1920s, stricken as it was after loosing the war and hit by strikes. Moreover, people now spend an increasing percentage of their income on services. There are also more reserves of minerals and oils that have been discovered. I do subscribe to one of the conspiracy theories about oil and the dollar, and any increase in world demand for goods (due to this velocity change) will be met with the oil companies pumping up more oil, and reaching further under the oceans…making sure the dollar will keep its value.
        Now this is of course my take of things. Others will have their different view – at least, I have a view.
        I have to add that any comparison with post WW-1 Germany that does not take into account the lessons learnt, and how the world has changed since then, is likely to be a bit flawed at least. That said, get ready for WW-3!

  4. I still can’t see how divorce will solve such occurrences. I’m not trying to be funny. I really can’t see it.

    [Daphne – That’s not the point, Reuben. The point is that it is not divorce which causes these situations.]

    • It is obvious that these situations aren’t caused by divorce. We don’t have divorce in Malta and these things happen. My question is: how will the introduction of divorce legislation help the situation?

      [Daphne – Reuben, you don’t argue against something by asking how it will help the situation. You argue against something by saying it will make the situation worse. Clearly, as we have seen, that is not possible as marriages are breaking up without divorce. How will it help? The biggest help is psychological. Formal separation already has all the effects of divorce bar the ability to remarry. It is an absurd ‘legal fiction’ in that it terminates the obligations of the marriage contract without terminating the contract itself. Now with all other contracts, this is not possible: you cannot release the person from what the contract is for, without also releasing them from the contract itself.]

      The “only” difference I can see is that you’ll be allowed to re-marry. How many people who are unhappily married will want to marry again once they’re free of their spouse? Put differently, how willing are you to repeat an unpleasant experience?

      [Daphne – Put differently, Reuben, it’s none of your bleeding business, not for you to say, and certainly not any concern of yours. If even one person wants to remarry, that’s enough. They don’t have to seek permission from Reuben Scicluna. Sorry to be harsh, but I find your patronising tone quite insufferable.]

      This is not a rhetorical question. Frankly, I don’t see why – if I were to leave my wife – I’d want to spend the rest of my life with another woman.

      [Daphne -It’s precisely because you don’t want to leave your wife that you can’t see yourself falling in love with somebody else.]

      • I am against divorce in principle, obviously. But I am not arguing against it. I just fail to see its use. You cannot present an objective and logical argument against divorce. Nor can you present one in favour, mind you, but I digress. Shameless plug: I have covered this in post no. 18 of my blog.

        What is patronising in calling a spade a spade? (By the way, you weren’t being harsh. It’s all par for the course. No need to apologise) I still cannot see the logic behind wanting to go through a potentially harrowing experience a second time.

        Divorce the first time around I can “understand” but divorce a second time? One has to be either a fool or impossibly difficult to live with. (Of course, if you can remarry you can divorce again)

      • David Buttigieg says:

        Well not completely true,

        My world would collapse if my wife and I had to separate/divorce but I still firmly believe we should have divorce legislation.

      • FGATA FL-IPOKREZIJA says:

        Jiena ninnota li dawk li jisseparaw jew jiddevorzjaw kwazi dejjem jerghu jibdew relazzjoni, bhal donnu jkunu verament jixtiequ jsibu sieheb/siehba u dak li qatt ma sabu fl-ewwel zwieg.

        Anke dawk li sseparaw minhabba omosesswalita’, wara s-separazzjoni jiddeciedu li wasal iz-zmien li finalment jghixu s-sesswalita’ taghhom u hajjithom mal-persuna li xtaqu u huma u ta’ l-istess sess taghhom. Dawn il-kazijiet saru komuni wkoll.

        Imbaghad ghandek dawk il-persuni bi problemi fil-karattru u fil-komportament taghhom li jwasslu ghas-separazzjoni taz-zwieg u wara ma tkun xejn facli li jsibu partner.

      • Joseph Camilleri says:

        I do not wish to sound patronising, however I’d like to get Mr Scicluna into the picture. Say, most Maltese are Catholic, many are simply declared Catholic but do not practise but a sizeable minority holds other faiths.

        So if such other religions are not legal (read divorce) because the vast majority does not pursue or is not interested in other religions, besides once grown cold from one religion who wants to go into another one? However, If a single person wants to follow such a path, who am I or Mr Scicluna to obstinately say no, because it does not solve the plights of the Maltese Catholic Church?

        [Daphne – Divorce has nothing to do with religion. It is a secular matter. Whether all or no Maltese are Catholic is completely irrelevant.]

        Divorce is not a matter to be decided by those who are happily married, but it is a civil right for whoever became entrailed in a sour experience to have a second chance.

        Why should anyone be condemned to hell on earth, maybe for the wrongdoings of his/her partner? I cannot understand why many like Mr Scicluna cannot be christian enough to empathise with their fellow citizens.

        My last attempt: imagine a sister o brother of yours, happily married for some years but their partner starts becoming obsessed with a religious fellowship to the extent of relinquishing family duties, escalating the matters to an untenable level. Should the wronged partner be condemned to eternal solitude, in such a short life? Ponder about this.

  5. Dandy says:

    The salient point here is that this woman was initially sentenced to 1 week in jail – not suspended mind you – for this relatively minor failing (for which she had a valid reason), while VAT fraudsters, wife beaters, internet paedophiles and violent assailants (see next story in timesofmalta.com) get a suspended sentence! Good thing the sentence was revoked. I’m afraid the credibility of our legal system is sinking by the minute.

  6. ciccio2010 says:

    Surely, things in some families are already bad enough – I cannot see how divorce will make them worse. In fact, I think it could only make them better.

    This is the third consecutive week in which we are reading about cases where rows between the parents (or their families) result in damaging impact on the kids. At least, this time the parents made use of technology to contact each other.

    However, I must say that I find this detailed coverage of family matters by the national newspapers as somewhat sad. I understand that the courts are a public place, and that some rulings are of public interest, but can’t cases relating to family matters be heard in a special court with more privacy?

  7. Leonard says:

    So the First Court sends this lady to jail for one week for not turning up with the children but a lawyer who defrauds his clients, not once, but four or five times, keeps getting a suspended sentence. Am I missing something?

    • ciccio2010 says:

      Leonard, about that lawyer’s case, maybe it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. And then robbing Joe to pay Peter, and so forth.

      • Leonard says:

        ciccio2010, a year ago Bernard Madoff got 150 years for doing something like that (albeit on a larger scale).

  8. John Schembri says:

    And what’s your point?

    [Daphne – That it’s not divorce which leads to these situations.]

    • John Schembri says:

      “That it’s not divorce which leads to these situations.” Wrong conclusion, Daphne. An agreeable statement would be :”that it’s not ONLY divorce which leads to these situations.”
      Divorce will not eliminate this problem.

      [Daphne – Use some logic, John. Divorce does NOT cause these situations. Divorce is what happens when these situations exist already.]

  9. Don't discriminate says:

    I wonder what Fr Daniel Cardona might put up on a billboard on this problem.
    On second thoughts: problem? What problem? L-aqwa li m’ghandniex il-‘mishut’ divorzju.

  10. Min Weber says:

    With all due respect. The situation would not have changed an iota with divorce.

    So, yes, but irrelevant.

    • ciccio2010 says:

      Min Weber, from earlier posts, I understand that your position on divorce is very intransigent. However, the situation for this lady would have been different.

      You see, she just avoided a week’s imprisonment, thanks to an eye infection.

      However, she will be imprisoned in her marriage to a husband, with whom she and her children are estranged, for the rest of her life, because she cannot stand up and put an end to this story.

    • David Buttigieg says:

      @Min,

      The point is, we still have all these situations that the anti-divorce brigade say divorce will bring about.

      The argument that divorce will destroy our families does not hold water.

  11. vassallo vanessa says:

    There are plenty of couples who are separated and do not go this low. What I mean is that those separated parents who are civilised do not opt for a public garden to make fathers meet their children.

    Usually fathers collect children at their mother’s house and then they try to spend their days as normal as possible. Even if the mother’s presence is needed during their appointments another solution should be found.

    Meeting in a public garden in my opinion is something degrading for both parties, children and fathers. It’s the parents who separate and not the children and the parents. Unless the father is a true monster, is it so wrong if the mother accepts her children’s father in her own house for a decent meeting.

  12. Daphne, ghawn hafna genituri jahsbu li ghandhom xi dritt sagrosant fuq uliedom. Barra minn Malta naf tfal li cahdu lil- genituri tahhom fil-qrati u hadu il-kunjom tal-foster parents.

    Il-Qorti ta’ Malta meta se tibda taghti id-dritt lit-tfal li jaghzlu min irabbihom f’kas ta genituri li jabuzaw?

  13. G. says:

    I wonder if anyone concerned has bothered trying to find out why the children “are not keen” (my words, after having read the above) to meet their father.

    Fathers often think that they have a right to “see” their children, with not a second thought given to the children’s right to decide on whether or not they wish to spend time with them. The children in this case are aged 11 and 16 – an age where both probably know their minds and have more sense than many. Somebody of 16 is not a ‘child’ and has every right to refuse to see the father.

    Generally speaking, to put it crudely, providing one half of the genes does not make one a father (or a mother, for that matter); it’s the behaviour and presence afterward that count. Not many Maltese men seem to appreciate this. Maybe it’s all to do with the “mammone” attitude prevalent here.

  14. Pat says:

    Kemm ahna sbieh min jaf jarana. L-aqwa li ghandna it-tezor imma. U “holier than thou”.

  15. XK says:

    I’m all for divorce and the opportunity for people to start a new life but this sad episode is one of many that will repeat itself and will not go away with the introduction of divorce.

    As long as there are bitter and vindictive individuals, who might love their children but hate their estranged partners more, these situations will persist, with or without divorce.

    • Mercury Rising says:

      This is not a case of partners hating each other, more a case of children being estranged from their father and though yes a mother may have a finger in that, it is not always the case.

      Drunken individuals, crackpots or simply egocentric people (who didn’t have time for their family in the first place) are generally disliked by kids be they 6 or 16.

      Also, the court’s judgement is mind boggling, when one considers that this lady is a single mother with no help from outsiders in raising the kids and she has already spent several days in prison.

      Also since the visits were meant to be monitored in the first place, where was Appogg?

  16. red nose says:

    Divorce will surely increase heartbreaks and frustration for the children who are certainly innocent.

  17. FGATA FL-IPOKREZIJA says:

    Pajjiz ipokkritu. pajjiz mimli koppji separati, tfal barra miz-zwigijiet, koppji jikkoabitaw u qatt ma zzewgu imbaghad niftahru li m’hawnx divorzju. Jiddispjacini nghid li anke l-qassisin huma ipokriti ghax dawn jafu aktar minn kulhadd x’inhi s-sitwazzjoni fil-pajjiz imbaghad joqghodu jiftahru fuq l-ambone li f’Malta m’ghandiex divorzju.

  18. Ann says:

    Definitely no credibility in our legal system. It’s scary!

  19. Annie Gauci says:

    La Malta hawn is-separazzjoni sincerament ma nafx x’differenza ha jaghmel id-divorzju. Quddiem Alla bid-divorzju u minghajru xorta pogguti huma (skuzawni imma dik hi il-kelma]. Jiena nahseb li bid-divorzju iktar spejjez u hassle u l-avukati isiru sinjuri iktar milli huma. Skuzawni iimma dik hi l-opinjoni tieghi.

  20. Ronnie says:

    The MTA should take a cue from the Prime Minister and market Malta as ‘treasure island’ – ghax m’ghandniex id-divorzju!

    What a close minded individual the Prime Minister is if he really thinks that way. What an even more close minded individual he is if he thinks that there will be even 1 case of a spouse leaving their partner only because all of a sudden divorce is available.

    Happily married couples don’t wake up one day and just decide to part ways simply because they can. Marriages break down because the relationship between partners breaks down.

    Divorce does not affect the marriage but what happens after the marriage. Why is it so bloody difficult for people to understand this. How can we be so insular.

  21. ciccio2010 says:

    Yet one more case out of more than 7% of married couples who are either legally separated or where the couple are not living with each other:

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100722/local/man-who-threatened-family-gets-suspended-sentence

    “Taking the witness stand, Ms Muscat said that she forgave her estranged husband who was a different person when he was drunk.”
    Ok, so it was not her husband, but someone else, who chased her in a car, crashing into them, and who smashed everything up.

    See also: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100722/local/almost-15-000-people-not-living-with-spouse

  22. Iro says:

    Unless I am much mistaken, legal separation only removes the right/duty of co-habitation and the contract then governs pecuniary matters but all the other obligations/duties towards one’s spouse remain unchanged.

    As usual in Malta everyone closes an eye and a half regarding these remaining duties – until one separated spouse wishes to punish the other and uses the law to do it.

    Any legal beagle out there – Am I wrong?

    [Daphne – The effects of separation are total and complete, like with divorce. Spouses no longer retain rights over each other or duties towards each other. As with divorce, formal arrangements are made as to the care and custody of the children, visiting rights for the father, and so on. If financial settlement is final at the point of separation, then the wife loses any claim to her husband’s pension (and vice versa, but that never happens). To retain a claim, she has to receive at least a token maintenance payment from him every week/month until he turns 61. If spouses are in their 30s or 40s when their marriage breaks down, this is clearly not realistic, so settlement tends to be final, and that’s the end of everything. If a man pays his wife maintenance, he is entitled to list as a condition the qualifier that she does not work (or she loses it) or live with another man (ditto) – both of which are sensible, as I really don’t see why a husband should maintain his wife long-distance if she is working and/or living with somebody else.]

    • claire.belli says:

      In my opinion the worst thing is when someone has to go through an annulment. They go too deeply into the private and intimate life of the couple.

      I appreciate my privacy and protect it as much as possible, so I cannot imagine myself going through that kind of process, with a bunch of “humans” asking me private and intimate questions.

      [Daphne – I imagine they get a vicarious thrill out of it: asking probing questions about how and when and if a couple had sex, just like the vicarious thrill their precursors got in the Inquisition, asking ‘witches’ how and when they had sex with the devil. It’s all sick and twisted.]

      I referred to them as “humans” since we’ve always been taught that marriage is a sacrament created by God, and then is the human being who decides whether it should be dissolved or not – priests, lawyers, etc.

  23. David Buttigieg says:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

    • “The separation of spouses, while maintaining the marriage bond, can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense” (#2383).

    • “It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to [their]… marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage” (#2386).

  24. Dear Daphne,

    Jiena ma naqbilx mad divorzju!

    Xi survey semma 59% tal-Maltin iriedu id-divorzju. Hekk sewwa u il-41% iriedu isewwu it- tifriek? It-tfal mhux flus iriedu imma l’imhabba tal-omm u l’imhabba tal-missier.rigward li minn hu kontra id-divorzju huwa niqes mill edukazzjoni ma naqbilx jiena nahseb bil- kontra!

    Min hu edukat mhux f’sens ta’ egozimu iried il-paci u mhux il- firda li maha igieb hafna feriti li ma jinalqu qatt.

Leave a Comment