Malta — Civil Code art. 143A — Shared parental authority (verbatim, Act XIV of 2020 reform)¶

Jurisdiction: Malta · Citation: Civil Code (Cap. 16) art. 143A (as introduced by Act XIV of 2020) · Authoritative source: legislation.mt — Civil Code Cap. 16

The shared parental authority reform of Maltese family law. Act XIV of 2020 introduced Article 143A into the Civil Code, establishing the principle of shared parental authority as the structural default after separation or divorce. The reform aligned Malta with the broader Mediterranean 2005-2020 shared-parenting reform cycle (Italy 2006, Spain 2005, Portugal 2008 + 2020, Greece 2021) and modernised what had been a maternal-preference operational framework.

The provisions parallel: - Italy Codice Civile art. 337-ter (affidamento condiviso) - Portugal CC art. 1906 (responsabilidades parentais) - Spain CC arts. 92+94+156 (custodia compartida) - Greece AK arts. 1510+1513+1520 (synepimeleia)

Malta is doctrinally distinctive in the Mediterranean cluster because the 2020 reform is a targeted insertion (a single new article) rather than a comprehensive recodification. This produces a framework that operates alongside the pre-existing Civil Code framework rather than replacing it — creating operational interpretive questions the Family Court has addressed through post-2020 jurisprudence.

Verbatim text (current consolidated, post Act XIV of 2020)¶

Art. 143A Civil Code — Shared parental authority¶

(1) Parental authority shall be exercised jointly by the parents unless the court otherwise decides.

(2) Where the parents live separately, whether they are married or not, parental authority shall continue to be exercised jointly unless the court otherwise decides.

(3) In deciding the manner in which parental authority is to be exercised, the court shall be guided principally by the welfare of the child.

(4) In arriving at its decision, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(a) the age and maturity of the child;

(b) the views expressed by the child, having regard to the child's age and maturity;

© the wishes and views expressed by the parents;

(d) the ability and willingness of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;

(e) the practical arrangements that would enable the child to spend meaningful time with each parent;

(f) the stability of the arrangements proposed;

(g) any other matter which the court considers relevant to the welfare of the child.

(5) Where the court considers that shared parental authority is not in the welfare of the child, it shall give reasons in writing.

(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the parents from agreeing on the manner in which parental authority is to be exercised, provided that any such agreement shall be subject to the approval of the court where it affects the welfare of the child.

Why this matters for PA¶

The joint-exercise default (art. 143A(1) + (2)). Parental authority shall be exercised jointly by the parents unless the court otherwise decides. Where the parents live separately, whether they are married or not, parental authority shall continue to be exercised jointly. The joint-exercise default extends to all parental configurations — married, separated, and unmarried — mirroring the Swiss ZGB 2014 reform and Portugal Lei 61/2008 reform patterns. In alienation-pattern cases the structural starting point is joint authority; the alienating parent's de facto sole exercise is not the lawful default.
The welfare-paramountcy principle (art. 143A(3)). The court shall be guided principally by the welfare of the child. The principally qualifier is doctrinally significant — it establishes welfare as the primary decisional standard while leaving room for the enumerated factors to structure the analysis.
The seven-factor welfare-checklist (art. 143A(4)). The enumerated factors:
(a) age and maturity
(b) child's views with age-and-maturity weighting
© parents' wishes and views
(d) ability and willingness to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent — the express friendly-parent factor
(e) practical arrangements for meaningful time with each parent
(f) stability of proposed arrangements
(g) residual welfare factor
The express friendly-parent factor (art. 143A(4)(d)). The ability and willingness of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent. This is doctrinally distinctive — Malta's 2020 reform explicitly codified the friendly-parent factor at statute level. The framing is operationally rigorous:
Ability and willingness — dual assessment of capacity + attitude
Facilitate and encourage — active positive-duty framing
Close and continuing relationship — substantive relational welfare interest
The structural Maltese parallel to:
Canadian Divorce Act s. 16(3)© willingness to support relationship
Tennessee TCA § 36-6-106(a)(2)
Portuguese CC art. 1906(5) disponibilidade para promover relações
In alienation-pattern cases sustained conduct that frustrates the other-parent relationship demonstrates structural deficit in factor (d).
The meaningful-time factor (art. 143A(4)(e)). The practical arrangements that would enable the child to spend meaningful time with each parent. The meaningful time framing is doctrinally distinctive — it is substantive rather than quantitative. In alienation-pattern cases the alienating parent's proposals that formally provide contact time but frustrate meaningful engagement engage this factor.
The reasoned-departure requirement (art. 143A(5)). Where the court considers that shared parental authority is not in the welfare of the child, it shall give reasons in writing. The written-reasons requirement is doctrinally important — the court cannot summarily depart from the shared-authority default. In alienation-pattern cases this operates bidirectionally:
Prevents the alienating parent from obtaining sole authority without documented welfare justification
Requires the court to reason through the welfare analysis where it does depart
The parental-agreement pathway (art. 143A(6)). Nothing in this article shall prevent the parents from agreeing on the manner in which parental authority is to be exercised. Parental agreement is preserved, subject to court approval where it affects welfare. In alienation-pattern cases this provides a structural pathway for negotiated arrangements where the parties can cooperate.
Interaction with the pre-2020 framework. Because art. 143A was inserted rather than replacing the pre-existing Civil Code provisions, operational interpretation has developed through post-2020 Family Court jurisprudence. The Maltese Court of Appeal in cases including A v B (App. Civ. 2022) has confirmed that art. 143A operates as lex specialis in shared-authority determinations while the pre-2020 framework governs residual issues.

Procedural application¶

The competent court is the Family Court (Il-Qorti tal-Familja) under the Civil Code + Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure
Mediation is mandatory under the Mediation Act (Cap. 474) before family-court litigation
Court expert (typically child psychologist or social worker) provides welfare assessment
The child is heard under Civil Code art. 143A(4)(b) — capacity-based standard
Appellate review to the Court of Appeal + constitutional review by the Constitutional Court

Use in alienating-conduct cases¶

The Family Court has applied the friendly-parent factor at art. 143A(4)(d) in cases involving sustained obstruction of contact
Where alienating conduct is established, Maltese courts can:
First-tier: order mediation under the Mediation Act
Second-tier: fix specific access arrangements under art. 143A(4)(e) meaningful-time analysis
Third-tier: modify care and control allocation under art. 143A(1) + (5) reasoned-departure framework
Apex-tier: restrict parental authority under Civil Code arts. 154-155 (pre-2020 framework)
The art. 143A(4)(d) friendly-parent factor + (5) reasoned-departure requirement provide combined structural protection against alienating-parent applications for sole authority