Equal shared care means no maintenance between parents
Where a child spends half his time with each parent, the Court of Appeal held that neither pays the other maintenance: each meets the child's needs in their own time, and health, education and activities are shared equally.
The Court of Appeal (Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr Justice Robert G. Mangion and Madam Justice Simone Grech) decided Z1 vs Z2 on 13 July 2026 on cross-appeals from a Family Section judgment of 9 October 2025.
It removed the order that the father pay €450 a month towards the mother's rent, holding that where a child lives half the time with each parent, each parent bears the child's needs while he is with them and no maintenance passes either way.
It left joint custody, the child's ordinary residence with the mother and the existing access pattern unchanged.
The facts
The parties, who never married, have a son born in 2016. The mother moved from Russia to Malta on the father's promise of support, including stable housing. When they separated in 2019 they agreed informally that the boy would sleep at the father's on Tuesdays and Thursdays every week and stay with him every other weekend, which the first court found gave each parent half the time.
The father paid €700 a month until May 2021, then cut it and stopped by October 2021 on the footing that time was shared. A decree of 1 November 2022 ordered him to pay €300 a month plus half of health and education costs. The mother then sued.
She had changed jobs four times and homes several times, and was sharing a one-bedroom flat and a bed with the boy. The father, self-employed, said his company had lost €101,543 in 2024 and paid him about €15,000 a year; the mother's gross income was €43,591 in 2023 and higher in 2024.
The first court, finding the father had “the upper hand” and the mother was “the underdog”, ordered him to pay €450 a month to be used only for rent, entitled him to inspect any flat she chose, and set off the parties' documented expenses to leave €889.23 owed by him.
What the court held
The court decided without a hearing under article 152(5) of Cap. 12.
It restated the law: articles 3 and 7 of the Civil Code bind both parents; the quantum follows article 20, need against means; the duty is absolute and survives unemployment, as the First Hall said in T.C. vs R.M. (24 June 2019): “Il-Qorti ma tista’ qatt taċċetta li persun/a ġġib it-tfal fid-dinja u titlaq kull responsabbilta` tagħhom fuq il-ġenitur l-iehor jew inkella fuq l-istat” [the court can never accept that a person brings children into the world and leaves all responsibility for them on the other parent or on the state]; and a claimant cannot get more than the child needs.
Applied here, the evidence showed the mother's income exceeded the father's and she had not rebutted his declared figures. The rent contribution had rested on her inability to afford suitable housing; her own appeal papers now said she had bought a two-bedroom flat, and although no proof was filed the court took the point.
A first-court decree of 6 March 2026 had already clarified that beyond the €450 everything was shared equally. The court concluded that “each parent is to take care of all their child's needs whilst in their care and that all expenses pertaining to health, education and extra-curricular activities are to be borne equally between the parents”, dismissed the mother's maintenance claims and accepted the father's counter-claim to that effect.
The rest of the father's appeal failed. A child must have one ordinary residence even where the split is even, and the mother's moves were explained by circumstances, including a neighbour who tried to break down her door. Access stayed as it was: the parties' disputes had always been about money, never about time, and the boy had settled into the routine; the decree of 6 March 2026 had confirmed the weekend arrangement.
The passport stays with the mother, renewal subject to the father's consent not unreasonably withheld. On arrears the first court's set-off stood: both sides had receipts, the father's claimed €350 Revolut payment was not in evidence, and the mother's expenses after December 2024 were asserted but not proved, the maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit applying in family cases too.
First-instance costs were split half and half; the mother bears her own appeal, and the father's appeal costs fall three-quarters on him and one-quarter on her.
Why it matters
A genuine 50/50 arrangement now carries a clear consequence: no maintenance between the parents, whatever the income gap, with shared expenses split equally. A parent seeking a contribution in that setting must prove a need of the child that the other parent's time does not meet. And arrears claims live or die on receipts: an unproven Revolut transfer and an unquantified period of expenses were both refused.
Where it sits
The case applies articles 3, 7, 20 and 149 of the Civil Code and article 562 of Cap. 12.
The court named S.A. v. J.A. (Court of Appeal, 22 February 2024) on both parents' obligations; T.C. vs R.M. (First Hall, 24 June 2019) and L.S. vs L.F. (First Hall, 2 October 2019) on the absolute duty; J.M. v. D.M. (Court of Appeal, 29 February 2024) and C.W. v. M.S. (Court of Appeal, 16 July 2024) on maintenance not exceeding need; A.B. pro et noe v. S.F. (Court of Appeal, 12 May 2022) on health and education expenses; and M.D. v. A.C. (Court of Appeal, 31 October 2014), J.M. pro et noe v. L.M. (Court of Appeal, 14 December 2018) and A.B.B. v. I.M. (Court of Appeal, 5 December 2024) on article 149 and the best interests of the child.
The first court had also relied on M.G. vs M.G. (31 January 2019) and A.M. vs E.P. (26 January 2023).
Source
Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), 124/2024/1, 13 July 2026: 124/2024/1.