When joint custody no longer serves the child

Malta’s Civil Court (Family Section) has entrusted a mother with sole care, custody and parental authority, while preserving the father’s contact with the child. The judgment also deals with responsibility for necessary therapy costs and with the evidence needed to recover unpaid maintenance.

In AB v CD (Application 144/2024 BS), the court considered whether an existing agreement on custody, access and maintenance still served the child’s interests. Judgment was delivered on 24 September 2026 by Hon. Dr Brigitte Sultana (ECLI:MT:FMLJ:2026:163526).

The mother asked for changes to the arrangements, including sole responsibility for decisions about the child and an increase in maintenance. The court looked at how the arrangements worked in practice, particularly where the parents’ cooperation was needed to secure care in good time.

The child’s needs come first

The court stressed that custody decisions must turn on the child’s best interests.

The evidence showed persistent difficulties in communication between the parents, and delays in getting the father’s cooperation on decisions affecting the child. In the court’s assessment, keeping joint custody would prolong those difficulties and risk delaying decisions that sometimes had to be taken quickly.

The judge therefore entrusted the mother with sole care and custody. She could decide on education, healthcare, activities and travel, including renewing the child’s passport, without needing the father’s consent.

The reasoning focused on the practical effect on the child: whether the arrangements gave stability, continuity and timely decisions.

Custody, parental authority and contact

The judgment treated parental authority separately from care and custody.

In discussing article 154 of the Civil Code, the court described removing parental authority as an exceptional remedy. It also explained that the court has a separate power to entrust the exercise of parental authority to one parent where the child’s interests require it.

Here, the considerations that supported sole custody also led the court to entrust parental authority to the mother alone.

The father’s contact with the child nevertheless continued. The court ordered him to take the child, punctually and wherever required, to therapy sessions or activities that fall during his contact time.

The outcome shows that responsibility for decisions and continuing contact are separate matters. Giving one parent exclusive authority to make decisions does not necessarily end the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Necessary care carries financial responsibility

The court also looked at the cost of therapy already paid for.

The existing agreement required advance consent for spending above a set amount. The court nevertheless found that the documented therapy costs had been incurred in the child’s best interests and should be shared equally between the parents.

Its reasoning was that one parent’s avoidance or delay could not be a way out of the obligation to support the child’s necessary care.

The court also increased monthly maintenance and ordered it to be paid by deductions from the father’s salary or benefits.

These conclusions depended on the evidence and circumstances before the court. They should not be read as general permission to ignore agreed consultation requirements whenever parents disagree.

Proof still matters

The father had not filed a defence, but the court stressed that this was not an admission of the mother’s claims. She still had to show that the orders she asked for were justified.

That mattered when the court came to arrears. It ordered reimbursement of the father’s share of documented expenses, but did not decide the separate claim for unpaid monthly maintenance because no supporting evidence had been produced.

The judgment therefore draws a practical line between showing that a child needs financial support and proving a particular debt. A claim for arrears needs evidence of what was due and what remained unpaid.

What the decision means

The judgment shows how the court may revisit agreed arrangements when the way they work no longer serves the child’s interests.

It also underlines the value of clear records. Evidence of delays, necessary care and spending helped the court assess the changes requested, while the lack of evidence stopped it from deciding one claim for arrears.

The decision concerns one family and its circumstances. Its wider importance lies in the court’s focus on workable arrangements: decisions must be taken in time, contact must fit the child’s needs, and financial responsibilities must be supported by evidence.

If an agreement about your children is no longer working, a conversation about your own circumstances is the right first step. See care and custody and access.

Editorial note

This note uses the anonymised party designations in the court’s caption. Family names, personal chronology and medical details have been left out, as have financial amounts and other details that could identify the family.