Shared care changes the maintenance calculation, but does not end the duty to support children

A parent who cares for a child for substantially the same amount of time as the other parent may meet ordinary maintenance obligations through the costs of that care. Whether a separate monthly payment is still needed depends on the child’s needs and the parents’ circumstances.

That distinction lies at the centre of Z1 v Z2 (Application 143/2020/1 AL), decided by Malta’s Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) on 13 January 2026. The court comprised Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Hon. Dr Robert G. Mangion and Hon. Dr Simone Grech.

What the appeal was about

The appeal concerned residence, contact and maintenance orders. The first court had provided for joint custody, residence with the mother, contact with the father and monthly maintenance payable by him. The father challenged both the care arrangements and their financial consequences.

The evidence and the children’s best interests

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence alongside the child advocate’s assessment. It also explained that the ordinary rules about the burden of proof remain subject to the court’s overriding concern for the children’s best interests. A weakness in a parent’s presentation of evidence does not turn the proceedings into a contest to be decided without regard to the children’s welfare.

More contact, and what it did to maintenance

The court increased the father’s contact so that, as far as possible, the children would spend substantially equal time with each parent. It kept the underlying arrangement to the extent compatible with those changes and provided for professional monitoring of how it was put into practice.

That practical division of care affected maintenance. Referring to articles 7, 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, the court emphasised that both parents must support their children and that maintenance reflects needs and means. In the circumstances before it, neither parent was required to pay the other monthly maintenance for ordinary daily needs. Each would meet those costs while caring for the children. Education and health expenses, together with agreed extracurricular activities, were to be shared equally, with periodic reconciliation.

The appeal was therefore partly allowed. The obligation to maintain the children continued; the way it was carried out changed.

What the decision does not say

The decision should not be read as establishing that shared care automatically cancels maintenance. The court looked at the actual care arrangements, the evidence and the parents’ financial circumstances. Those features matter when judging how far the judgment is relevant to another family.

If your own care arrangements are changing, or you are unsure how maintenance would be assessed, a conversation about your circumstances is the right first step. See care and custody, access and child and spousal maintenance, or read how child maintenance is decided in Malta.

Editorial note

The parties are shown as in the court’s published title, Z1 v Z2. Family names, personal chronology and medical details have been left out.