🇪🇺 European Child Taken Without Assessment — Mother’s Nationality Manipulated in Malta
Il problema
BACKGROUND
My son, David, is a 6-year-old Italian citizen.
Until April 2024, he lived exclusively with me — his primary caregiver since birth — with no history of abuse, neglect, or risk.
On 29 April 2024, the Maltese Family Court issued an urgent decree removing him from my care.
This decree was issued:
● without hearing me
● without assessing the child
● without appointing an independent. expert
● without applying any safeguarding procedure
● without explaining why such an. extreme measure was necessary
The decree is just a few sentences long, with no factual basis and no reasoning — a violation of European standards for urgent child protection measures.
KEY PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS
1. No risk assessment
Even though I twice reported domestic violence and scored 12 and 14 on the risk assessment scale, no evaluation of the child’s safety was performed before removing him.
2. No child assessment
David was never evaluated by any independent professional.
3. Court-ordered monitoring ignored
The decree itself required monitoring —
but the Child Protection Agency never conducted a single session.
4. Therapist with conflict of interest
A private therapist connected to the father’s circle was used.
When I requested a change, the court refused without analysis.
5. Nationality manipulated in the official file
My nationality was wrongly recorded as “Nigerian”, not Italian.
This error removed my rights, blocked my son’s passport, and created jurisdictional confusion.
Not a single lawyer corrected it.
6. Sudden removal
Court marshals arrived with no prior notification.
My son cried, hid under tables, and begged not to go.
Videos exist and were filed in court.
7. Violations now under Constitutional Review
The case is currently before the First Hall of the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) —
but enforcement of the same decree continues as if nothing is being reviewed.
8. International expert monitoring the case
Dr. Barry Goldstein, a global expert on Harmful Outcome Cases, is now following this file.
His work is widely respected in:
– the US
– Europe
– domestic-violence courts
– child-protection fields
– safeguarding reforms
His presence highlights the severity of what has happened.
📌 WHAT I AM ASKING FOR
1. An independent international review
Of all procedures, omissions, and decisions made.
2. The application of EU child-protection standards
Including Article 24 of the EU Charter and Brussels II-bis obligations.
3. Immediate safeguarding measures for the child
Consistent with international practice in harmful outcome cases.
4. Correct registration of my nationality
As Italian, as required by law.
5. Transparency and accountability
From institutions that failed to apply even the minimum child-protection safeguards.
📌 WHY THIS MATTERS
This is not only about David.
This is about every child in Europe whose rights depend on institutions doing their job.
● When monitoring is ignored,
● when assessments are skipped,
● when decrees have no reasons,
● when errors about nationality go. uncorrected,
👶children get hurt.
A continent that lights its buildings orange to say
“No more silence for women and children”
cannot ignore what happened here.
Please help us bring David back to safety.
Sign. Share. Make this case visible.
UPDATE — 1 OCTOBER 2026: EUROPEAN CORRESPONDENCE, GREVIO FINDINGS AND MALTA’S FAMILY COURT REFORM
Since this petition was launched on 28 February 2025, important developments have taken place.
1. European Commission correspondence
On 5 August 2026, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers issued a written response concerning my request for guidance in this cross-border domestic violence and child-protection case (reference Ares(2026)6754522).
The correspondence addressed the relevance of EU victims’ rights legislation, including Directive 2012/29/EU and Directive (EU) 2024/1385. It discussed access to support, protection from secondary victimisation, and the importance of making relevant domestic violence information available to competent authorities assessing a child’s best interests.
This correspondence is not a finding that a violation occurred in my individual case. It does, however, make the implementation of these safeguards a concrete issue for institutional scrutiny.
2. GREVIO’s findings concerning Malta
On 17 September 2026, GREVIO, the Council of Europe’s independent expert monitoring body under the Istanbul Convention, published its thematic evaluation of Malta.
The report identifies shortcomings concerning domestic violence in custody and visitation proceedings, including the need for systematic screening for domestic violence, consultation of relevant authorities, and better professional understanding of the risks associated with allegations of parental alienation.
These are systemic findings, not a determination of my individual case. Nevertheless, they raise questions directly relevant to the safeguards I have been requesting.
3. Malta’s Family Court reform enters into force
On 1 October 2026, the majority of Malta’s new Family Court procedural reforms entered into force. The announced reforms aim to strengthen children’s participation and protection, improve procedures and reinforce the role of the Children’s Advocate.
The Maltese Government has also stated that further implementation work remains necessary for certain specialised functions and support structures.
The essential question is therefore not simply whether new rules exist, but whether they provide effective protection in practice, including in complex proceedings already underway.
4. What must now be examined
My son, David, is an Italian child involved in cross-border family proceedings. My petition has raised concerns about the assessment of risk, the implementation of court-ordered monitoring, the handling of domestic violence information, the recording of my nationality and the basis on which jurisdiction was exercised.
I am calling for the relevant records and decisions to be independently and carefully examined, with particular attention to:
- Whether the applicable jurisdictional rules were properly assessed and reasoned.
- Whether relevant domestic violence information and protection measures were considered in decisions affecting the child.
- Whether the previously ordered monitoring was implemented and, if not, what safeguards replaced it.
- Whether David can receive effective, independent representation through the Children’s Advocate, with access to the relevant information within the scope of that role.
- Whether the relevant Maltese and Italian authorities have adequately coordinated the information necessary to protect the child.
My request remains the same: effective safeguards, transparent examination of the record, and protection centred on the child’s best interests.
This petition does not ask an institution to prejudge the proceedings. It asks that serious, documented questions be examined by the competent authorities and that the protection promised by European standards become effective in practice.
A reform is not measured only by the rules adopted. It is measured by whether those rules protect children when protection is needed.
Sanaa Rezk
Governance Integrity Architecture (GIA)
SPSF | AGTF | ΔT Principle | TIS-C
Antimafia Integrity Mapping Architecture | AIPDE-GIA
Protection fails when activation comes after effect.
49
Il problema
BACKGROUND
My son, David, is a 6-year-old Italian citizen.
Until April 2024, he lived exclusively with me — his primary caregiver since birth — with no history of abuse, neglect, or risk.
On 29 April 2024, the Maltese Family Court issued an urgent decree removing him from my care.
This decree was issued:
● without hearing me
● without assessing the child
● without appointing an independent. expert
● without applying any safeguarding procedure
● without explaining why such an. extreme measure was necessary
The decree is just a few sentences long, with no factual basis and no reasoning — a violation of European standards for urgent child protection measures.
KEY PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS
1. No risk assessment
Even though I twice reported domestic violence and scored 12 and 14 on the risk assessment scale, no evaluation of the child’s safety was performed before removing him.
2. No child assessment
David was never evaluated by any independent professional.
3. Court-ordered monitoring ignored
The decree itself required monitoring —
but the Child Protection Agency never conducted a single session.
4. Therapist with conflict of interest
A private therapist connected to the father’s circle was used.
When I requested a change, the court refused without analysis.
5. Nationality manipulated in the official file
My nationality was wrongly recorded as “Nigerian”, not Italian.
This error removed my rights, blocked my son’s passport, and created jurisdictional confusion.
Not a single lawyer corrected it.
6. Sudden removal
Court marshals arrived with no prior notification.
My son cried, hid under tables, and begged not to go.
Videos exist and were filed in court.
7. Violations now under Constitutional Review
The case is currently before the First Hall of the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) —
but enforcement of the same decree continues as if nothing is being reviewed.
8. International expert monitoring the case
Dr. Barry Goldstein, a global expert on Harmful Outcome Cases, is now following this file.
His work is widely respected in:
– the US
– Europe
– domestic-violence courts
– child-protection fields
– safeguarding reforms
His presence highlights the severity of what has happened.
📌 WHAT I AM ASKING FOR
1. An independent international review
Of all procedures, omissions, and decisions made.
2. The application of EU child-protection standards
Including Article 24 of the EU Charter and Brussels II-bis obligations.
3. Immediate safeguarding measures for the child
Consistent with international practice in harmful outcome cases.
4. Correct registration of my nationality
As Italian, as required by law.
5. Transparency and accountability
From institutions that failed to apply even the minimum child-protection safeguards.
📌 WHY THIS MATTERS
This is not only about David.
This is about every child in Europe whose rights depend on institutions doing their job.
● When monitoring is ignored,
● when assessments are skipped,
● when decrees have no reasons,
● when errors about nationality go. uncorrected,
👶children get hurt.
A continent that lights its buildings orange to say
“No more silence for women and children”
cannot ignore what happened here.
Please help us bring David back to safety.
Sign. Share. Make this case visible.
UPDATE — 1 OCTOBER 2026: EUROPEAN CORRESPONDENCE, GREVIO FINDINGS AND MALTA’S FAMILY COURT REFORM
Since this petition was launched on 28 February 2025, important developments have taken place.
1. European Commission correspondence
On 5 August 2026, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers issued a written response concerning my request for guidance in this cross-border domestic violence and child-protection case (reference Ares(2026)6754522).
The correspondence addressed the relevance of EU victims’ rights legislation, including Directive 2012/29/EU and Directive (EU) 2024/1385. It discussed access to support, protection from secondary victimisation, and the importance of making relevant domestic violence information available to competent authorities assessing a child’s best interests.
This correspondence is not a finding that a violation occurred in my individual case. It does, however, make the implementation of these safeguards a concrete issue for institutional scrutiny.
2. GREVIO’s findings concerning Malta
On 17 September 2026, GREVIO, the Council of Europe’s independent expert monitoring body under the Istanbul Convention, published its thematic evaluation of Malta.
The report identifies shortcomings concerning domestic violence in custody and visitation proceedings, including the need for systematic screening for domestic violence, consultation of relevant authorities, and better professional understanding of the risks associated with allegations of parental alienation.
These are systemic findings, not a determination of my individual case. Nevertheless, they raise questions directly relevant to the safeguards I have been requesting.
3. Malta’s Family Court reform enters into force
On 1 October 2026, the majority of Malta’s new Family Court procedural reforms entered into force. The announced reforms aim to strengthen children’s participation and protection, improve procedures and reinforce the role of the Children’s Advocate.
The Maltese Government has also stated that further implementation work remains necessary for certain specialised functions and support structures.
The essential question is therefore not simply whether new rules exist, but whether they provide effective protection in practice, including in complex proceedings already underway.
4. What must now be examined
My son, David, is an Italian child involved in cross-border family proceedings. My petition has raised concerns about the assessment of risk, the implementation of court-ordered monitoring, the handling of domestic violence information, the recording of my nationality and the basis on which jurisdiction was exercised.
I am calling for the relevant records and decisions to be independently and carefully examined, with particular attention to:
- Whether the applicable jurisdictional rules were properly assessed and reasoned.
- Whether relevant domestic violence information and protection measures were considered in decisions affecting the child.
- Whether the previously ordered monitoring was implemented and, if not, what safeguards replaced it.
- Whether David can receive effective, independent representation through the Children’s Advocate, with access to the relevant information within the scope of that role.
- Whether the relevant Maltese and Italian authorities have adequately coordinated the information necessary to protect the child.
My request remains the same: effective safeguards, transparent examination of the record, and protection centred on the child’s best interests.
This petition does not ask an institution to prejudge the proceedings. It asks that serious, documented questions be examined by the competent authorities and that the protection promised by European standards become effective in practice.
A reform is not measured only by the rules adopted. It is measured by whether those rules protect children when protection is needed.
Sanaa Rezk
Governance Integrity Architecture (GIA)
SPSF | AGTF | ΔT Principle | TIS-C
Antimafia Integrity Mapping Architecture | AIPDE-GIA
Protection fails when activation comes after effect.
Aggiornamenti sulla petizione
Condividi questa petizione
Petizione creata in data 28 febbraio 2025