Understanding Child Maintenance

This is Part 2 of a two-part series on Maintenance. Part 1 addressed maintenance due to the spouse.

The parents of children have an obligation to look after, maintain, instruct and educate their children. These obligations are what we refer to by the term “maintenance”. The provisions of these obligations need not be first-hand. In instances where these obligations cannot be supplied by the parents, such as education, the parents are nevertheless required to facilitate the child to receive such education.

This parental duty shall subsist until the children are:

• of adult age,
• if children are participating in full-time education, learning or training, until they are 23 years of age; or
• if children have a mental or physical disability as defined by the relevant legislation, such obligation shall not subsist.

Nonetheless, the obligations owed to a child by a parent shall also apply to a person acting in loco parentis.

Maintenance is defined as a notion whereby the parents “għandhom jikkontribwixxu għat-trobbija tal-ulied[1]” (they have to contribute to the upbringing of their children). Hence, there is no definition outlining the parameters of what this obligation entails, but rather a principle that enforces a dynamic obligation.

Once separation of spouses ensues, the children who are offsprings of the separating spouses, shall be due maintenance which shall be quantified by analysing the circumstances of these two factors:

1. Spouses: This factor considers the spouses’ ability to work and their needs. This is because if a spouse is unable to generate income, whether the parent during the marriage was a person having earnings or was in charge to take care of the household, or suffers any circumstances that impair their ability to maintain themselves, they will be less likely to provide maintenance for the children.
2. Children: This factor entails considering multiple factors to determine and quantify the maintenance that shall be paid to meet the needs of the children, any disability which the children may possess, and any circumstances of illness of gravity which may compromise the ability of the children to maintain themselves.

Monetary and circumstantial factors, such as the following, are also considered:

• Income or benefit received that is not due by virtue of the Social Security Act;
• Accommodation of the spouses and of the children; and
• Benefits which parents were due to receive but shall no longer receive due to separation.

When the parents are in separation proceedings, maintenance owed to offspring may be agreed upon through mediation sessions. In such sessions consideration is given to the above-mentioned factors when quantifying maintenance. If the parties fail to agree on the maintenance, the Court shall quantify the maintenance due according to the circumstances.

In accordance with the above-mentioned dynamic obligation parents owe to their offspring, maintenance of extra-curricular activities and extra-ordinary expenses have to be specifically accounted for. An example of such is AB vs. Dr. Chircop et noe, where the Court categorised between ordinary maintenance and maintenance to account for extra-ordinary expenses to come to a unified maintenance[2]. Such activities and expenses include any sport-related expenses the offspring attends after school hours, beginning of scholastic year expenses, extra-ordinary medical bills, and various others. Nonetheless, the payment structure and division of expenses shall be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.

The same grounds allowing a testator to disinherit a descendant also apply to maintenance owed to a child. Hence, should a ground be satisfied in his regard, the parent supplying maintenance has cause to refuse maintenance to the offspring.

Moreover, a parent shall be permitted to refuse maintenance to a brother or sister if they have suffered a grievous injury caused by that offspring, or if such injury has been inflicted on their spouse or any relative up to the degree of an uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece. Such exclusion shall be without detriment to the other offspring that are due maintenance.

At GTG, we specialise in helping you understand your right to child maintenance, providing personalised legal advice and support to ensure your children receive the financial support they deserve after separation. Contact us at info@gtg.com.mt

[1] Ji Pro et noe vs. Dr. Yanika Bugeja noe, Civil Court (Family Section), 18 October 2023.

[2] AB vs. Dr Christopher Chircop et noe, Civil Court (Family Section), 11 July 2024.