Court orders \u2018Unstoppable Family\u2019 to stop exposing children online in custody dispute<\/p>\n
A court has ordered the social media campaign by the self-styled ‘Unstoppable Family’ to stop exposing two children at the centre of an ongoing care dispute, warning the broadcasts risk causing the minors serious harm.<\/p>\n
However, while drawing a clear line over future broadcasts, the court refused to order the removal of videos and posts already published.<\/p>\n
It ruled an injunction is meant to prevent future conduct rather than roll back actions that have already taken place.<\/p>\n
The judgment, delivered on Monday by Judge Giovanni Grixti, grants a warrant of inhibition sought by the Directorate for Child Protection against the children’s parents Stefan Gatt and Carolien Agius, and social media broadcaster Publius Said, better known as Leo Said.<\/p>\n
Last July, Said was acquitted of possessing extreme child sex abuse material and misusing electronic equipment due to lack of evidence.<\/p>\n
Said had protested that he was a victim of “a frame-up by the Americans”.<\/p>\n
Parents vowed to keep broadcasting<\/b><\/p>\n
The Directorate had removed the couple’s children from their parents’ care under the Child Protection (Alternative Care) Act.<\/p>\n
The parents insist the children were removed unlawfully and placed with their aunt through “deceit”.<\/p>\n
They then took their fight to social media, appearing in a series of broadcasts criticising the authorities and calling for Malta’s child protection laws to be changed.<\/p>\n
Recordings exhibited by the directorate showed the couple displaying photographs of the children, discussing sensitive details of the case and accusing the children’s aunt of deception.<\/p>\n
Said also featured in the broadcasts, voicing support for the parents.<\/p>\n
While Said denied ever publishing official documents, one of the parents made it clear the campaign was far from over, telling the court she intended to continue speaking out “until the law is changed.”<\/p>\n
Earlier court warning fell on deaf ears<\/b><\/p>\n
Judge Grixti said the campaign continued despite an explicit warning from the Court of Appeal, which had reminded all parties that child protection proceedings are heard behind closed doors.<\/p>\n
The appellate court had instructed them “not to publish the facts of this case on social media or through other means,” warning that doing so “would be considered a direct act of contempt towards this court.”<\/p>\n
Despite that warning, the broadcasts carried on. ‘Unstoppable Family’ and Said continued to air information, including the medical condition of one of the children and the identity of the person caring for them, the court heard.<\/p>\n
The recordings placed before the court, Judge Grixti said, pointed to a possible breach of the confidentiality protections laid down in Malta’s child protection legislation.<\/p>\n
‘Without any doubt’ the children could suffer<\/b><\/p>\n
More importantly, he said, the broadcasts posed a genuine risk to the children’s wellbeing.<\/p>\n
“The public is constantly warned,” the judge observed, that publishing photographs and personal details of children “can leave very negative effects on their lives, not only in the future but also in the present.”<\/p>\n
Yet instead of discussing the law in general terms, the couple repeatedly delved into the specific facts of the case.<\/p>\n
“Without any doubt,” the court said, this could result in “serious prejudice” to the children, particularly in a country as small as Malta.<\/p>\n
Campaign may continue – but not at children’s expense<\/b><\/p>\n
The judge said that the ruling is not a gag order preventing criticism of the authorities or debate about Malta’s child protection laws.<\/p>\n
In fact, he expressly recognised the parents’ right to campaign for legislative reform.<\/p>\n
They remain free, he said, to discuss “the law as it stands” and “how they understand the powers of the directorate”, including arguing that “the law should be changed.”<\/p>\n
But the judge said it would be “in the interests of their own children” for the respondents to avoid referring to the ongoing proceedings altogether.<\/p>\n
Why existing videos will stay online<\/b><\/p>\n
Although the directorate also asked the court to order the removal of videos and social media posts already published, that request was refused.<\/p>\n
Judge Grixti held a warrant of inhibition is designed to prevent future acts from taking place, not to reverse acts that have already occurred.<\/p>\n
Unstoppable Family and Leo Said were therefore ordered to stop making any further broadcasts revealing details of the case, but were not required to delete existing content.<\/p>\n
Costs were reserved for the final judgment.<\/p>\n
Lawyer Christian Camilleri appeared for the Directorate.<\/p>\n
Lawyer Carmelo Gatt appeared for Stefan Gatt and Caroline Agius. <\/p>\n
Said appeared unrepresented.<\/p>\n