Court is no place for children. Yet the decisions taken there – especially in the Family Court – can define a child’s life for years to come.
The delicate line is knowing how, if and when to listen to a child before making those life-altering judgments.
It’s not simple. Multiple complex factors collide: protection, truth, parental conflict, the child’s best interest, and a child’s evolving capacity to understand and express what they feel – and the consequences of that.
Some insist children should be shielded from family disputes entirely. Others argue their voice must carry real weight, not polite tokenism.
A recent study led by Bernardine Satariano, conducted by the University of Malta and The Malta Foundation for the Wellbeing of Society, is sobering. Young people who passed through the system described being routinely denied a voice in decisions that shaped their childhoods. Its conclusion is blunt: the Family Court remains “adult-centric”.
The study found that too often, judges, mediators and even lawyers filter or dilute what children say – if they are invited to speak at all. While our laws permit children’s views to be considered, practice is riddled with inconsistencies.
At mediation, some children are never heard. In court, it is left to the judge to decide whether to appoint a child advocate or a child psychologist – professionals that come with very different professional training.
There are no formal guidelines on how reports on a child should be prepared, and young people described these reports as misleading or incomplete.
The findings of the study shed light on the need to ensure that – if a child is to be heard – whether as a witness to harm or to help determine their future in a family dispute – it must happen in the right place, by the right people, in the right way.
It is tragic when a child growing up in an abusive environment is not heard because someone deemed them ‘too young’, only for the truth to emerge years later
Consistency is the core deficit. Different judges presiding over Family Court cases use different methods: chambers versus experts, different experts for similar situations, uneven standards on when and how a child’s views are sought.
Method cannot be a matter of ‘style’. It must rest on clear, professional guidance rooted in child psychology, safeguarding and evidence-based practice. Of course, flexibility is essential – not all cases are alike – but flexibility should be the application of sound principles, not a lottery.
Children are complex, and the situations they live in are often more complex still. It is tragic when a child growing up in an abusive environment is not heard because someone deemed them “too young”, only for the truth to emerge years later. It is equally tragic when a child’s words, spoken in fear, confusion or coercion, lead to outcomes they genuinely do not want – such as the loss of meaningful contact with a parent.
Children are not just witnesses, and they are not just ‘children’. Their words can reverberate far beyond a hearing – which is why professionals must assess context carefully, without punishing honesty. This takes time – and investment. It will not happen in one conversation with a child advocate.
Expertise matters – to balance the “best interests of the child” with a child’s evolving capacity.
Getting that balance right requires trained, independent professionals working to clear standards.
Malta can and should build a Family Court process that is neither adult-centric nor child-burdening, but child-attuned: hearing children respectfully, interpreting their words professionally, and protecting them from the weight of decisions they cannot carry alone.
Court may never be a place for children – but when it must touch their lives, it should do so with professional consistency and care.
Source link