In our system, children over 18 years of age become bastards: the legal bond with their parents remains until they are 18 years of age and beyond that age, the parents are not legally obliged to maintain them anymore. The parents are perfectly within the law if they kick their children out of the house in the streets.
Of course no parents in their right mind would do this, but parents with a history of bickering against each other can do this and are doing it. Unfortunately in the Family Court, when parents have reached a stage when they do not see eye to eye, the breadwinner most often tries to put pressure on the other party by refusing to pay maintenance; not only to the other party, but also to the children who are over 18 years of age. The difference being that whereas in the former case, the other party has means of redress before the courts, the children who are over 18 do not.
So what is happening in our society? We are witnessing many of our students having to abruptly stop their studies, because they are no longer financially supported by their parents. The funny thing is that the judge is helpless in this matter because the legislator still thinks that 18 years is long enough for the parents to maintain their children and still sees no need to extend this age limit if the children are still pursuing their studies.
The sad thing that is these children not only have to go through the pressure and ordeal of their parents’ separation; but they are also the worst hit by this separation, so that they find themselves suffering the most when they have had no share in the breakdown of their parents’ marriage. By law, he or she who causes the most damage pays the most; but in the cases of separation it is the children who are paying the highest price, especially those who are over 18 years of age, because our legal system treats them as bastards once they are of age.
I cannot understand how our legislators continue to allow this when we are living in an age that encourages children to pursue their studies after they finish secondary school. I cannot understand how on the one hand we have a government promoting higher education, and rightly so; but on the other, the same government sees nothing wrong in having irresponsible parents cutting all support to their children because they have come of age.
I invite the government to witness the trauma on these children when they are told by their mother (in most cases it is the mother who has to break the sad news) that she cannot afford their tuition any more; and that therefore the child has no option but to find work to help the family. In many of these cases it is a shame how the other parent can often afford expensive cars and a luxurious lifestyle, but keeps refusing to help the children. It is a shame how we still have a system where in these cases, one of the parties is on social assistance and the other party is on a spending spree.
There is something wrong somewhere and I invite the new Minister for Social Policy, Mr John Dalli, to look into these cases because we cannot continue to have a system where social assistance is given to people, not because they are in need, but because they cannot dispose of what they have because their separation is not concluded. How can we continue to allow people to suffer and go on social assistance, and then not give power to the Court to order the sale of any property pending the conclusion of the separation? This way, the proceeds would allow the children to continue with the same lifestyle that they had before their parents’ matrimonial problems, and the mother could be maintained from such sale?
Why does the system continue to rely on social assistance? Worse still, when such assets are assigned, why is neither party made to refund what was given by the state? We are giving money to those who need it, this much is true; but only because they have other means to maintain themselves, but cannot dispose of these means because the legal system does not allow this. I am all in favour of disposing any of the assets during the separation proceedings in order to make sure that the children do not suffer.
In Italy, the responsibility of the parents does not stop at 18: maybe over there they go too far because the legal system does not put a limit as to when parental responsibility stops. The Italian legal system makes it the responsibility of the parents to maintain their children until they have a full-time employment. I remember there was a case where the parents wanted their son to move out of their house because he was lazy, but the court ruled that unless that son had a job, he could not be sent out in the streets.
I do not altogether agree with the Italian system, because the responsibility of the parents cannot be extended to lazy adult children. I for one agree that such responsibility has to extend until the age of 23 when the children are still studying. That is usually the age when children finish their undergraduate studies at our university. If children are studying at university, they must no longer continue to be penalized by their parents because they are in the process of separation.
It would not be amiss if the University and MCAST were to tell us how many students left halfway, and study the reasons that led to this sudden change of heart. I am sure that they will find that the parents’ separation is one of these reasons. Parents who are fighting a bitter separation case tend to let their interests come before those of their children, although most of the time they do not do it consciously. It is true that the target is the other party to the marriage little realising that in the short and long term it is the children who are the primary targets because their career hopes disappear because of unforeseen financial constraints.
I cannot not mention also the humiliation that many mothers have to go through in order to ask for maintenance. This takes place mostly in the case when the husband is self-employed. In most of these cases the tax returns amount to not more than LM5000 or LM6000 annually and obviously the judge has to fix the amount of maintenance for the wife and the children based on this income.
So that the children and the wife find themselves all of a sudden in financial constraints having to do great sacrifices to live on the amount ordered by the court whereas for the husband it is business as usual because if he had the Mercedes before the matrimonial problems, he continues to drive the Mercedes, if he had the boat he continues to enjoy the boat whereas the wife and children go through the trauma of settling in another lifestyle inferior to what they are used to.
It is the same with bank accounts and all other movable assets during marriage: why does the wife have to go through the pain of having to have a court license to ask anywhere about her husband’s assets? Are we in favour or against the community of acquests? On the one hand we say that by marriage the couple becomes one but on the other hand, the legislator is providing pieces of legislation which make the couple grow apart rather than together.
If the person is married and provides a valid marriage certificate, any bank or financial institution, the commissioner of inland revenue, the commissioner of vat, etc etc ought to be obliged by law to give such information and not continue to humiliate the spouse by having to spend money and time instituting a court case to be able to ask the judge for authorization to obtain such information.
The name appropriate to the Family Court should be the Pain Court because the human pains and suffering that we see there is something beyond belief and it is no wonder that no judge can stick that court for more than a certain number of years. But if the judge is given by the legislator more power, he will be able to alleviate this pain!