Cleared of breaching child custody order

A woman was yesterday acquitted of breaching a child custody order after a court ruled she had good reason to refuse access to the father of her child.

Lisa Pace, 28, was found not guilty of breaching the order handed down by the Second Hall of the Civil Court.

Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera heard how Pace had 10 children. Her husband had been jailed for life at around the time Loreto Bonello filed an application for access to the child she had had during an extra-marital relationship with him.

Pace did not reply to the application and the Second Hall gave a ruling granting Bonello access.

Magistrate Scerri Herrera also heard how Bonello had been separated for 11 years and had lost custody of his three children because he had been taking drugs for seven years at the time.

He had an 11-year-old boy whom he gave up for adoption, a 12-year-old girl who is living with a foster family and a 14-year-old girl who is housed in an orphanage.

She also heard that, when under the influence of alcohol, Bonello could put himself and other people, particularly children, in danger.

He was currently serving time and had been transferred to Mount Carmel Hospital. His sister suffered from depression and had committed suicide at the age of 25 years.

Meanwhile Pace claimed Bonello was a violent alcoholic who had broken down her front door twice and had even forced her to have sexual relations with him.

She claimed Bonello did not really want to see the child but had initiated the proceedings so that he would have contact with her.

Pace said Bonello was aggressive when he was not taking his medication and the social worker confirmed most of what she said.

A psychologist and a psychiatrist appointed by the court to examine Bonello had concluded that he should be allowed to see his children but not have direct contact with them. He should be allowed supervised visits in a neutral place.

Magistrate Scerri Herrera also noted that, since Pace had not replied to the application filed by Bonello, the Second Hall might not have been aware of the circumstances before it gave its ruling.