Grandparents’ contact: the children’s welfare comes before an adult’s demand for a relationship

A relationship with grandparents can enrich a child’s life. Whether a court in Malta should order contact, however, depends on the relationship being offered and its effect on the children. In a recent case, the Family Court refused contact after finding that the grandparents’ approach was driven by control rather than respect for the family’s boundaries.

The judgment was delivered on 21 October 2026 by Hon. Antonio Giovanni Vella, sitting in Malta’s Civil Court (Family Section), in C M and R B v S M and M M, sworn application 200/2019 AGV. At the time of writing, the judgment is under appeal. This report concerns the first-instance decision; no appellate outcome has been verified.

The grandparents’ case and the parents’ answer

The applicants were the children’s maternal grandparents. They maintained that their daughter’s husband had influenced her to exclude them from family life and sought the court’s intervention to restore contact. The parents resisted that account. Their position was that they wanted to raise their children without the grandparents’ demands and interference.

Not simply the husband’s influence

The court examined the competing accounts against the evidence of the wider family relationship. It rejected the suggestion that the estrangement could be explained simply by the husband’s influence. The mother’s account described serious difficulties with her parents which predated that relationship. The judge found the grandparents’ attempt to place responsibility on the husband unconvincing.

The distinction mattered. A contact application could not be assessed solely through the grandparents’ disappointment at losing a relationship with their grandchildren. The court had to consider whether the contact sought would benefit the children in the circumstances actually established.

Demands for compliance, not a willingness to rebuild trust

The judge acknowledged the value of healthy relationships within an extended family. He nevertheless found that the applicant grandfather continued to demand acceptance of his views and sought to control the lives of his daughter and her family. The correspondence was significant to that assessment: it demonstrated an insistence on compliance rather than a willingness to rebuild trust and respect boundaries.

On that evidence, the court concluded that contact would not serve the children’s best interests. It dismissed the grandparents’ application and ordered them to bear the costs.

The earlier Italian proceedings

The judgment also addressed an earlier decision by an Italian tribunal. The parents argued that the foreign proceedings prevented the Maltese court from deciding the matter. The judge found that the tribunal had declined jurisdiction rather than determined the merits. Comments made outside that operative conclusion did not amount to an earlier decision resolving the contact dispute. There was also a procedural defect: the additional defence had not been confirmed on oath, so the court treated it as a submission rather than a properly constituted additional sworn plea.

What the decision does not say

The decision’s practical significance lies in its assessment of the proposed relationship. It does not establish that grandparents can never obtain contact, or that parental opposition alone determines the outcome. Here, the court’s refusal followed its findings about control, family boundaries and the likely effect on the children. The appeal means that those conclusions should be reported as the first court’s findings rather than an unchallenged final position.

The court’s focus on the children rather than the adults echoes its approach in an earlier decision on custody.

If contact with a child in your family is in dispute, a conversation about your own circumstances is the right first step. See care and custody and access.

Editorial note

The court’s anonymised party names are retained in this report. Family surnames beyond those initials, detailed personal chronology and medical details have been omitted to protect the children and the family’s privacy.