Child maintenance is owed whatever the parent earns

The Civil Court (Family Section), Madam Justice Claire Stafrace Zammit, decided E. vs E. on 9 July 2026. It gave the mother exclusive care and custody of the three children still under eighteen, fixed maintenance at €200 a month per child against the father, and made permanent the decree of 29 April 2019 that had removed the father's parental authority after his deportation.

The separation claim itself was not decided: the parties had divorced in Egypt and the wife withdrew it.

The facts

The parties married in Egypt in May 1993. Seven children followed, five of them minors when the wife filed for separation in February 2018. Her evidence described a marriage of beatings, control and abandonment: births forced on her abroad, repeated moves, years left alone in Egypt with the children, her head struck against a wall in front of them, and in August 2015 stitches from a leg operation opened by a beating.

That report led to a conviction for injuries, eight months' imprisonment and a protection order, and she moved into a shelter with the children. The husband was later held in the Safi detention centre, charged over a disturbance there, and deported. Deputy curators were appointed for him and later discharged.

A first judgment of 12 July 2023 was annulled by the Court of Appeal on 15 October 2024 so that he could bring his evidence; he called the parties' adult son, who said the father was job-hunting and receiving €300 a month from him, and that one daughter, now eighteen, had moved in with the son after complaints against her mother.

In January 2026 the wife withdrew her claims for separation, division of the community and the article 48 forfeitures, the parties having divorced abroad. The husband filed no submissions.

What the court held

The court took no cognisance of the withdrawn claims. On custody it applied the best-interest principle from L.T. pro et noe vs J.T. (First Hall, 2 October 2003), M.D.S. vs A.S. (Family Section, 27 November 2003) and S.M. vs P.V. (Court of Appeal, 25 November 1998): what the parents want is irrelevant; what the child needs decides.

Two children's advocates had reported, in 2019 and 2022, that the children were firmly against seeing their father and that contact would do more harm than good.

The allegations that the mother was violent, relayed by a social worker who had them from the eldest daughter, were “riprodotti minn terzi persuni u għalhekk ma jistgħux jitqiesu bħala l-aqwa prova” [reproduced by third parties and so cannot be treated as the best evidence]; the mother had in fact offered family therapy and the daughter refused.

That daughter is now an adult and, under article 150(b), parental authority over her ended by law at eighteen. Custody of the three minors went to the mother alone.

The wife's own maintenance claim failed: she works as a supply teacher earning about €1,000 a month, she had registered the divorce, and she had withdrawn the fault-based claims. Child maintenance was another matter.

Citing articles 3, 3B and 7 of the Civil Code and J.P. pro et noe vs J.P. (First Hall, 25 June 2003), the court held that “l-obbligu għall-manteniment tal-minuri mhuwiex marbut bl-ebda mod mal-impieg jew mal-introjtu tal-ġenituri iżda huwa obbligu assolut” [the obligation to maintain minors is not tied in any way to the parents' employment or income, but is an absolute obligation].

A 2018 decree had set €200 a month for all the children while the father was in detention and the family was in a shelter; his own photographs now show him living a normal life with relatives, and the mother has since bought a home through equity sharing and pays a loan.

The court fixed €200 a month for each of the three minors, €600 in all, inclusive of health, education and extra-curricular costs, rising with the cost-of-living index, deductible at source, payable to eighteen or to twenty-three if in full-time study, with children's allowance to the mother. The same €200 is due for the eighteen-year-old daughter if she studies full time and lives with her mother.

On parental authority the court applied articles 149 and 154 of the Civil Code. The 2019 decree had removed the father's authority because of the serious failing that led to his deportation; he had shown no reason to revoke it.

The court crystallised that position, authorised the mother to sign alone for health, schooling and travel, refused the father access, and referred the case to the Directorate so that professionals can ask the children on their own whether their refusal stands, any future contact to be supervised.

Costs, including those of the earlier preliminary and partial judgments, against the husband.

Why it matters

A pendente lite figure set when the payer could not work is not a ceiling; the court re-opened it once his circumstances changed, and it treats a parent's residence abroad and lack of a job as no answer to the claim. Hearsay from a family member routed through a social worker will not shift custody. And a party who wants to stop an interim removal of parental authority from becoming permanent must bring evidence, not silence.

Where it sits

The case applies the best-interest rule in article 149, the grounds for removal of parental authority in article 154, the ipso jure end of parental authority at majority in article 150(b), and the maintenance obligations in articles 3, 3B and 7 of the Civil Code.

The authorities the court named are L.T. pro et noe vs J.T. (First Hall, Civil Court, 2 October 2003); M.D.S. vs A.S. (Civil Court, Family Section, 27 November 2003); S.M. vs P.V. (Court of Appeal, 25 November 1998); and J.P. pro et noe vs J.P. (First Hall, Civil Court, 25 June 2003).

Source

Civil Court (Family Section), 39/2018/4, 9 July 2026: 39/2018/4.