Unlawful refusal to release children to authorised parent at Klabb 3–16 centre

Unlawful refusal to release children to authorised parent at Klabb 3–16 centre

Published March 02, 2026

The complaint

An EU national residing and working in Malta filed a complaint after he was refused the release of his two young children from the Klabb 3–16 Qawra Centre run by the Foundation for Educational Services.

On 5 December 2025, a day marked by heavy rain and risk of flooding, the complainant arrived slightly earlier than usual to pick up his children. He realised that he did not have the physical pick-up cards introduced earlier that year. He identified himself using his Maltese residence permit and presented a screenshot of the pick-up cards on his mobile phone. Staff at the centre, who were familiar with him, refused to release the children after briefly consulting a supervisor.

The complainant sought police assistance, which was not forthcoming. The children were eventually released approximately one hour later when their mother arrived with the physical cards.

Following the incident, the complainant repeatedly requested written clarification on the reasons for the refusal, the applicable policy, the discretion available to staff, and assurances that such an incident would not recur.

The investigation

The Commissioner for Education examined the correspondence between the complainant and the authorities, the official response from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, and internal communications within FES.

The investigation confirmed that a Standard Operating Procedure issued in August 2025 clearly provided for situations where a parent does not present the physical pick-up card. In such cases, staff are required to verify the person’s identity and confirm that they are listed on the authorised persons form. Parents are then to be reminded that the card must be presented in future.

The Commissioner found that this procedure was not followed. Instead, staff assumed that the complainant’s failure to present the card was not an isolated occurrence and declined to exercise the flexibility expressly provided for in the SOP.

The explanations provided by the education authorities relied on arguments relating to workload, safeguarding, and consistency. The Commissioner found these arguments unconvincing, particularly since the relevant SOP had already struck a balance between safeguarding and flexibility.

The investigation also noted with concern the suggestion that the SOP was an internal document to which parents had no right of access. The Commissioner stressed that documents directly affecting children and parents should, in principle, be accessible in the interest of transparency and accountability.

The Commissioner concluded that the children were unlawfully detained at the centre for close to an hour due to a failure to follow established procedure and to apply common sense.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The complaint was found to be fully substantiated and justified. The decision not to release the children to their authorised parent was contrary to law, unreasonable, and wrong in principle in terms of Article 22(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Ombudsman Act.

The Commissioner recommended that the Foundation for Educational Services formally acknowledge in writing that a mistake was made and provide clear written replies to the four specific questions raised by the complainant regarding policy, procedure, discretion, and assurances for the future.

Outcome

No action was taken by the public administration to date following the Final Opinion.

In view of this failure to implement the recommendation, the Commissioner for Education is publishing this report in the public interest in terms of Article 29(2) of the Ombudsman Act.