Woman ordered to surrender Russian boy's passport

A Maltese woman trying to adopt a Russian boy brought to Malta by the International Charity Society was yesterday ordered to return his passport to charity within two days.

Rita Scicluna was ordered to return the passport after a court ruled that although she was bound to ensure his well-being while he was in her care it did not mean she had to retain his passport.

Mr Justice Tonio Mallia, sitting in the Civil Court, passed judgment in the suit filed by Irina Malikova in her personal capacity and on behalf of the charity and the boy, Ivan Zaitsev, against Scicluna.

Malikova declared she was officially authorised to organise the visits of Russian children to Malta for holidays. The children came here with the approval of the Russian authorities, subject to the condition that the children's passports were to be retained at all times by Malikova.

Malikova said she had taken Zaitsev's passport to the immigration authorities for an extension of his visa.

Scicluna, who assisted the International Charity Society on a voluntary basis, had abusively withdrawn the passport from the immigration office and had refused to return it to Malikova.

The court was requested to declare that Scicluna was not entitled to retain Zaitsev's passport and to order her to return the passport to the charity within a short time limit.

The court was also requested to hear and decide the case with urgency.

Scicluna pleaded that the writ was null as it had been made out in the Maltese language and confirmed on oath by Malikova who was not Maltese speaking.

Furthermore, Scicluna added that the charity was not a juridical person and that Malikova could not represent it in judicial proceedings.

Scicluna also pleaded that Malikova had no legal interest in the proceedings.

She claimed that, as the minor was residing with her and had been doing so for some time, she was entitled to retain his passport.

Mr Justice Mallia dismissed all Scicluna's pleas and ordered her to return the boy's passport within two days.

The court ruled that there was no legal provision that prohibited Malikova from filing her writ in Maltese. On the contrary, the law clearly stipulated that all judicial acts had to be filed in the Maltese language.

When referring to Scicluna's pleas regarding the legal interest of Malikova and the charity, the court pointed out that Malikova had exhibited documentation clearly indicating that she was authorised to retain possession of the child's passport.

The documents showed that Malikova was responsible for the well-being of the children in her care and for the custody of their passports.

Mr Justice Mallia added that the writ was not about the care and custody of the minor child but about the possession of his passport.

Scicluna, as the child's host family, was bound to ensure his well-being while he was in her care. This did not mean she required to retain his passport.

Even though Scicluna and her husband were trying to adopt the boy, until such time as the adoption proceedings were completed, the boy was to remain under the overriding patronage of the charity, with Malikova having the custody of his passport.