A father’s right to a fair hearing was breached when a family court failed to spell out the reasons for curtailing access rights to his young daughter after taking note of a child’s advocate report that was not accessible to either parent. 

The decision was delivered by the Constitutional Court upon an appeal by the father who had raised the breach before the family court, which had reduced his access rights to a once-weekly meeting of 1.5 hours, under supervision by social workers from Appoġġ.

That measure had come about after a court-appointed child’s advocate had spoken to the minor and had subsequently presented her report to the family court, without getting the father’s version.

The very next day, that report was sealed away by the court which issued a decree stating that, after taking note of the records of the case, including the child’s advocate’s report, it was limiting the father’s access to the minor. 

A psychologist had reported that the minor was influenced by the mother who had since separated from the appellant and had been granted custody over the couple’s daughter.

The Constitutional Court observed that the role of the children’s advocate was to ensure that the minor “had a say in the matter”, and that such a lawyer was to act in the best interests of the minor. 

When it was not possible for the court to balance out the child’s interest against those of the parents, the minor’s “best interest” was to prevail. 

In this case, it would have been much more appropriate for the court to hear what the father had to say about any allegations made in his regard, especially since it was evident that the family court had considered the report drawn up by the child’s advocate. 

This was the “classic case” of a decree that lacked motivation, said the court.

The parties had a right to know what reasons lay behind a court decision, the Constitutional Court declared, adding that “only in that way can justice be seen to be done,” especially in such a scenario where such decisions impacted upon parent-child relations. 

By sealing the report and delivering its decree without any reasoned explanation, the court had breached the father’s right to a fair hearing, said the Constitutional Court, upholding his appeal and sending the matter back to the Family Court. 

The court was presided by Chief Justice Joseph Azzopardi and Mr Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul. 

Lawyer Christopher Chircop assisted the father.