Attempting to regulate a term which is not defined at law is a difficult exercise, and alienation is one of these instances.
In the case of ‘AB vs CD’ the court held that;
“In-nuqqas ta’ leġislazzjoni f’dan ir-rigward qiegħda toħloq konfużjoni proċedurali li jeħtieġ li tiġi rimedjata u dan sabiex kemm l-interess tat-tfal jiġu protetti kif ukoll id-drittijiet fundamentali tal-partijiet jiġu mħarsa”
Parental alienation is represented by a silent but common phenomenon within the Maltese legal order. Notwithstanding the fact that this is neither defined nor regulated under Maltese law, the courts have sought to define this term as seen through a number of judgements. In the case of ‘Il-Pulizija vs Omissis’ the court declared that Parental Alienation occurs;
“Meta ġenitur jgħawwar lit-tfal kontra l-ġenitur l-ieħor xi kultant anke mhux intenzjonalment, bir-riżultat li t-tfal jibdew iqisu li ġenitur wieħed jagħmel kollox tajjeb u l-ieħor jagħmel kollox ħażin”[1]
In the case of ‘Dr Ivan Sammut pro et nomine vs L-Avukat Ġenerali’ it was submitted by one of the parties that;
“Illi bir-rispett jiġi sottomess illi l-Qorti għandha każ ċar quddiemha fejn l-omm qiegħda ixxewwex it-tfal kontra l-missier u timlilhom rashom bi ħsibijiet negattivi fuqu, tant illi t-tfal saru brainwashed totalment”
In the aforementioned case the court had declared that the fact that the mother’s behaviour was planned implied that she had acted in such a manner intentionally;
“Hi l-fehma tal-Qorti li minn dawn l-okażżjonijiet jirriżulta biċ-ċar li l-imġieba tal-omm hija waħda mekkanika u maħsuba”[2]
Through Parental Alienation the child is manipulated in such a manner that he/she will start to disassociate themselves from any emotional connections towards the parent being targeted. As a result, the child starts to believe that the alienating parent is picture perfect as opposed to the targeted parent. This was seen through several different judgements. Particularly in the case of ‘AB Pro et nomine vs CB’ where the court had held that;
“.. Tirrakonta kif l-attitudni tal-ulied lejn ommhom (pendenti s-separazzjoni) ma kinitx waħda tajba u li tgħidilhom x’tgħidilhom fejn kienet biħsiebha toħroġhom kienu jgħidulha li ma jogħġobhomx u tikkonkludi li t-tfal ġew brainwashed kontra ommhom..”[3]
Another common ground brought about by Parental Alienation is when scenarios start being borrowed by the child from the alienator. Such borrowed scenarios materialise in false and distorted stories and ideas which are absorbed by the alienating child in confrontation of the targeted parent.
This can happen in many ways with the most popular technique being that of ‘coaching’ where the alienating parent, directly or indirectly brainwashes the child intentionally in order to negatively influence the perception that the child has of the other parent. In the case of ‘RM vs MN’ the court stated that the child may suffer from Parental Alienation owing to the fact that the reason behind the child’s actions may have been because of what they heard from their father;
“Ix-xhud mill-esperjenza tagħha ddikjarat li taħseb li t-tfal ibatu minn Parental Alienation syndrome u r-raġuni għal din hi li t-tfal ikunu semgħu xi informazzjoni negattiva fuq l-omm”[4]
The court in the case of ‘Kevin Pace vs Avukat Ġenerali Et.’ summed up the need of recognising Parental Alienation at law. In fact, the court stated;
“Il-Parental Alienation hija realtà qawwija u traġika fost ħafna familji li huma għaddejjin minn firda u jeħtieġ li jkun hemm taħriġ opportun għal kull persuna involuta fil-Qorti tal-Familja, inkluż avukati u ġudikanti, dwar x’tip ta’ azzjoni tista' tittieħed biex tiġi rimedjata mingħajr ma wieħed ikompli jkisser mhux biss lill-familja imma b’mod partikolari lill-minuri involuti”[5]
A good starting point would be for our law to provide a definition of what exactly constitutes Parental Alienation for legal purposes. Albeit a definition seems to emanate from various case-law, this is not enough.
The lack of definition as to what is Parental Alienation creates confusion and uncertainty, not to mention the leeway that is afforded to the alienating parent. Furthermore, since Parental Alienation is not criminalised under Maltese law and therefore no hard consequences are in place unless the targeted parent holds sufficient and substantial evidence of Parental Alienation, a situation is created with ideal conditions for abuse to ensue.
On the other end of the spectrum, several arguments against criminalising Parental Alienation are founded on the basis that it is a challenge to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The targeted parent may need to show that their own actions are not responsible for the alleged alienation. These cases are seldom straightforward, and there are remedies available. Judges in family courts and Magistrates in juvenile courts can hear detailed testimonies and evaluate the evidence. Courts can address parental alienation by ordering independent psychological evaluations of the parents, a custody evaluation, and a family assessment.
If it is determined to be in the best interest of the child, courts can modify the custodial arrangement and direct the Commissioner of Police to investigate any potential criminal offence related to Parental Alienation in its various manifestations.
Furthermore, The Family Court procedures are in urgent need of revision so that no one will be allowed to delay such procedures unnecessarily and that effective and efficient justice be practiced in the best interest of the minors.
In certain countries like Brazil and Mexico, Parental Alienation is considered a criminal offence. In other places, such as Italy, a parent who repeatedly engages in such behaviour may face a penal fine. Will our lawmakers follow suit? The actions of an alienating parent need to be acknowledged for what they are: the harmful manipulation of a vulnerable child against a loving parent.
Author: Dr Delilah Vella
For more information or assistance, please contact Dr Robert Tufigno and Dr Delilah Vella.
[1] Il-Pulizija vs Omissis (14/05/2020) Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior) Ref: 219/2018
[2] Dr Ivan Sammut vs L-Avukat Ġenerali (26/11/2020) Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) Ref: 27/2019
[3] AB Pro et nomine vs CB (26/10/2021) Ref: 196/2009
[4] RM vs NM (12/04/2018) Ref: 196/10
[5] Kevin Pace vs Avukat Ġenerali et. (Constitutional court) Ref: 82/2019/1