Constitutional Court rejects Maltese father’s plea not to return abducted son to Poland
The Constitutional Court has rejected an application to overturn a recent decision by the Court of Appeal for a Maltese father to return his abducted son to Poland.
The Constitutional Court has rejected an application filed by a Maltese father to overturn a decision handed by the Court of Appeal, which ordered him to immediately return his abducted son to Poland.
Michael Caruana filed his application against the Attorney General and the Department for the Protection of Social Standards, who fronted the case on behalf of the State as the guarantor of international conventions regulating child abductions.
Caruana argued that his plea not have his son returned to Poland was based on the premise on what was in the best interest of the five year-old boy.
The father also claimed that should the boy be returned, he would be practically surrendering any contact with his son, and his son would be severing all contact with his legitimate brothers.
While upholding the judgment handed by the Court of Appeal which ordered Caruana to return the boy to his Polish mother Katarzyna Morkis, the Constitutional Court said that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence that the Polish authorities would not be in a position to safeguard the best interests of the child once returned.
During submissions, the court heard that the child's parents lived in Malta, were never married and were in constant domestic turmoil. At one point, Morkis returned to Poland alone.
When Morkis informed Caruana that she was carrying his unborn child, she refused to return to Malta and the couple entered into an agreement in Poland, that gave custody to the mother and free access to Caruana to see his son.
But after several other arguments, the couple reached another agreement whereby the access rights of the father were clearly delineated, stating that he had to pick the minor up from his Polish residence and return him there.
Caruana however brought his son to Malta and refused to return him.
Both the First Hall of the Civil Court, the Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court found this to be in breach of international laws, as well as the Child Abduction and Custody Act.