Malta: The Law Came First – So What Exactly Was the 2024 Family Court Reform Reforming?
By Ashley Galea
Another important piece of the Maltese timeline risks being overlooked.
The Family Court reform was not the starting point for Malta’s new approach to domestic violence and children’s access.
The relevant domestic-violence legislation had already been enacted before the Government began its 2024 Family Court reform consultation.
Malta’s Domestic Violence Act, Act XVIII of 2023, was published in June 2023 and came into force on 18 July 2023.
That matters because Malta already had a legal framework dealing specifically with the effect of domestic violence on custody and access before the Family Court reform process reached its public-consultation stage.
Official Maltese guidance states that where there is evidence of domestic violence, a court can limit or deny access to children, particularly where access places the victim or children at risk. It also provides for supervised access where appropriate.
In other words, the principle that domestic violence could fundamentally affect a parent’s access to their children was already embedded in Malta’s legal framework before the
Government unveiled its First Phase Family Court Reform in September 2024.
Then came the Family Court reform
The Government launched its public consultation on the First Phase of the Family Court Reform on 30 September 2024.
The Government described the reform as an attempt to create a more efficient and supportive Family Court system, with children’s wellbeing at the forefront. Its proposals included a new Family Court Code, a Family Board, changes to mediation, equal parental rights and responsibilities, co-parenting, access and maintenance, a multidisciplinary court-support office and measures supporting victims of domestic violence.
The Government had already held a public consultation meeting on the reform in April 2024, with separate discussions on access and maintenance, care and custody, co-parenting and parental alienation.
That chronology is crucial.
The domestic-violence legislation came first.
The Family Court reform came afterwards.
Therefore, when the Government subsequently proposed changes to access, custody and co-parenting, it was not creating the legal principle that domestic violence can affect parental access from nothing.
It was reforming the Family Court system within a legal environment in which that principle had already been established. And this is where GREVIO enters the picture.
The connection becomes even more significant when you consider the Maltese Government’s own reporting to the Council of Europe. During Malta’s implementation reporting under the Istanbul Convention, the Government acknowledged that elements of GREVIO’s recommendations were being incorporated into the Family Court reform process.
So there is a chronological chain:
Domestic-violence legislation → legal restrictions and safeguards concerning access → GREVIO recommendations → Malta’s implementation reporting → Family Court reform consultation → further Family Court legislation.
That differs from portraying the 2024 reform as an entirely independent Maltese initiative.
It demonstrates that Malta’s family-law system was developing while the country was simultaneously operating under — and responding to — the monitoring framework of the Istanbul Convention.
The question of an accused parent
This distinction is particularly important when discussing accusations of domestic violence.
There is an obvious legal difference between:
being accused,
being charged, and
being convicted.
The existence of a domestic-violence allegation does not automatically establish that the allegation is true.
That distinction matters enormously in family proceedings because access to one’s children is a fundamental issue, and decisions affecting it can have consequences long before a criminal case has reached a final determination.
This is precisely why the interaction between criminal allegations, protection measures and Family Court access decisions deserves careful examination.
The Government’s 2024 reform consultation acknowledged concerns about access, enforcement, false accusations, and parental disputes. Its consultation material records discussion of inadequate remedies for breaches of access orders and specifically mentions concerns regarding false accusations and perjury.
So the central question is not whether children should be protected from genuine domestic violence. They should.
The difficult question is what procedural safeguards should exist when an allegation of domestic violence is made but has not yet been established by a court — particularly where that allegation can affect a parent’s relationship with their children.
The chronology exposes the bigger issue
This is why the Maltese timeline deserves to be placed alongside the wider GREVIO story.
The Family Court reform was presented as a major restructuring designed around children’s interests, co-parenting, access, mediation and protection from domestic violence. But the legal framework governing domestic violence and access was already in operation.
And GREVIO was simultaneously pressing European states to strengthen the way domestic violence is considered in custody and visitation decisions.
The result is a much bigger question than simply whether Malta needed a better Family Court.
It is whether Malta’s successive reforms are progressively aligning the country’s family-justice system with a common European model promoted through the Istanbul Convention and GREVIO’s monitoring process.
That is a question that deserves open debate, particularly because the consequences fall directly on parents and children, and because decisions about access can be made. At the same time, allegations are still being investigated rather than only after criminal proceedings have reached their conclusion.