Parent who alienates a child from the other loses custody
The Family Section varied a notarial custody deal and gave a mother sole custody after finding the father had alienated their daughter from her for years. It cut his access to set hours. It matters to unmarried parents with agreed custody terms.
Mr Justice Anthony Vella, sitting in the Civil Court (Family Section), on 11 June 2026 gave a mother sole care and custody of her teenage daughter and cut back the father's access. The court found that the father's conduct had alienated the child from her mother over about ten years. It varied the notarial contract under which the unmarried parents had shared custody since 2014.
The facts
In LM vs AT, the parents had a short relationship and a daughter in 2011. By a notarial contract of 4 August 2014 they agreed joint custody, residence with the mother, set access for the father and €250 a month in maintenance. In 2018 the mother sued to vary the contract and asked for sole custody, and the father counterclaimed for custody himself.
Over the years the father filed many police reports against the mother. In August 2021 the child refused to be collected by her mother and went to live with her father without any court order. A social worker of the Child Protection Directorate reported in July 2024 that the child showed signs of parental alienation attributed to the father.
On 8 July 2024 the court moved the child back to her mother and later allowed supervised access to the father. The child regressed, access was suspended in July 2025, and the psychotherapist, the parental coaches and the directorate each stepped back.
What the court held
The court held that custody is governed by the supreme interest of the child, not by the merits and faults of the parents. Joint custody should be avoided where parents cannot speak to each other civilly, because it breeds more litigation. It repeated that "Huma l-genituri li jridu jakkomodaw lit-tfal, u mhux vice-versa" (It is the parents who must accommodate the children, and not vice versa).
The court found that neither parent posed a danger to the child and that the father's repeated claims of abuse by the mother were not borne out. It found that the father had drawn the child into the litigation, had her report her mother to the police and used a toy to record her mother. Each time he was removed from her life, the child made progress.
The court said it "tqis bhala gravement irresponsabbli kull aġir li, direttament jew indirettament, iwassal biex tifel jew tifla jitbieghdu minn ġenitur li ghandu rwol leġittimu u importanti f’hajtu" (considers gravely irresponsible any conduct that, directly or indirectly, leads a child to be distanced from a parent with a legitimate and important role in his life). It added that the mother had also joined the cycle of conflict.
The court varied the contract to give the mother sole custody and the sole right to take every decision about the child, including extraordinary ones, without the father's consent. It did not shut the father out, because father and daughter love each other.
Access is seven hours every other Sunday. After six months it rises to one day a week, and after a year to overnight stays, provided the father and the child behave well towards the mother.
The child spends Mother's Day, her own birthday and her siblings' birthdays with her mother, and the father keeps the other holidays set in the contract. The court rejected all his counterclaims and ordered him to pay all costs.
On maintenance under articles 7(1) and 20 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta), the court noted that the father earns about €1,700 a month and the mother about €2,400, from which she also supports two other children. It raised maintenance to €350 a month, covering education, health, extra-curricular activities and summer school, in place of the separate refunds that had caused disputes.
Why it matters
Where court-appointed professionals find parental alienation, the Family Section may move custody to the targeted parent even after the child has lived with the other for years. A parent who litigates to win the child rather than to protect her risks losing custody and having access set on strict terms.
A notarial agreement on custody does not bind the court when the child's interest points elsewhere. An all-in maintenance figure is one way to end fights over receipts.
Where it sits
Custody of the children of unmarried parents follows the same rule as for spouses: the child's best interest comes first. Article 57 lets the court suspend or stop a parent's access where it harms the child or places the other parent at risk. Articles 7(1) and 20 set the duty to maintain a child according to the child's needs and the parent's means.
The court traced the best-interest rule to a judgment of 8 December 1858 and to the Court of Appeal (25 November 1998). It also cited a judgment of 25 June 2003 and the First Hall of the Civil Court (31 May 1958). The rule against joint custody where parents do not communicate came from the Court of Appeal (3 October 2008) and a judgment of 9 June 2016.
Source
Civil Court (Family Section), 259/2018, 11 June 2026.