The family court : proposals for new procedures

Abstract

Our system with a chance for reconciliation being afforded in the Second hall before proceedings in the First Hall are commenced is indeed admirable. Neither are we saying that the outcome is going to be perfect. What is to be avoided, is the complete fulfillment of the roles both the Second Hall and the First Hall have to perform. If the Second Hall is to have a role in first trying to reconcile the parties, this is just what has to be done, and to see to this the proposed role of the social workers and experts in matrimonial matters is vital. The judge in the Second Hall must have this team of workers at his disposal, this is because it is humanly impossible even if he is to dedicate his time only to separation matters, for him to visit each couple at home, to help in sorting out their problems. This is therefore where the experts come into picture. In the First Hall we have seen that what is required to reduce the hardship on the parties is a speeding up of procedures leading to a judgement on separation being given. Nothing can be done about the bitterness and hatred which these cases inevitably produce, but reducing the time during which such bitterness and hatred could be vented would be ideal so as to mitigate the hardship on the parties. In fact it would be worth noting that it is part of our mentality as Maltese, to feel the need that once proceedings have begun either party very often the husband, seeks vengeance over the other spouse with the consequence that litigation is very often lowered to is basest levels in separation suits. Each party brings out all the hatred that exists inside them and even the slightest of defects is blown up into the greatest of proportion. The purpose of having a separation suit with the relative guilt decided with six months would reduce the span of time during which bitterness and insults can be exchanged leaving out other ancillary issues to be settled, such as the division of the spouses property, which having a decision on guilt already in hand should not afford too much trouble. These proposals together with other issues discussed such as greater confidentiality with regards to the Court registry and also disallowing proceedings to be held in pubic should not be difficult to implement since all these issues are with a reasonable extent identifiable with our system as it stands today, in fact they may considered as a complement to and not a substitution for our present system, and could easily blend with our present procedures. In this way the whole purpose of such amelioration, that is the attainment of less hardship to the parties in separation proceedings, and to their offspring is procured. Proposals in cases dealing with family matters should not cause major upheavals and must necessarily be of such character as would enable their implementation with a minimum of fuss and disruption to the judicial system.