Child Relocation 2024

Last Updated September 02, 2024

Italy

Law and Practice

Author



Studio Zanetti Vitali was founded by Professor Emidia Zanetti Vitali in 1997 and is a boutique firm located in Milan with six independent lawyers providing high-end national and international clients with individually tailored advice and assistance on all aspects of civil law involving private (ie, non-commercial) parties. Studio Zanetti Vitali’s main fields of experience are litigation before all Italian courts and non-contentious dispute resolution concerning primarily – but not exclusively – legal separation, divorce, child custody, inheritance, paternity and guardianship. Studio Zanetti Vitali lawyers also have significant experience in coordinating international legal teams following trans-border disputes and settlements concerning family and inheritance issues.

The Italian notion of responsabilità genitoriale appears very similar to the English notion of “parental responsibility”. Until 2014, the decision-making capacity, and duty, of parents in Italy was referred to as potestà dei genitori, according to a tradition going back to the patria potestas of Roman law, and, apart from its renaming, the terms and provisions have varied little since the general reform of family law dating back to 1975.

According to Article 316 of the Italian Civil Code, parental responsibility belongs to both parents jointly, and must be exercised by mutual agreement, in pursuance of the best interests of a child, taking into account the child’s personal inclinations and abilities, particularly, but not exclusively, with regard to their preferred habitual residence, and to all decisions concerning education and upbringing.

If parents cannot reach an agreement on any issue of specific importance to their child, either of them can ask a judge to intervene. However, before making any decision, the judge must hear each parent, and the child if the child is 12 years old or older – or under 12 if considered mature enough to have a say – and must then endeavour to steer all parties towards a satisfactory solution.

Concerning financial matters, according to Article 320 of the Italian civil code, every decision related to the child’s estate, or property, outside the bounds of ordinary administration must be specifically authorised by the judge, and whenever a conflict of interest arises between the child and those to whom parental responsibility to the child falls with regard to a specific decision, the court will appoint an ad hoc guardian (curatore speciale).

Finally, according to Article 321 of the Italian Civil Code, an ad hoc guardian can also be appointed if the parents are not willing or able to take the specific action which appears to be required to meet the best interests of the child.

Based on Articles 250 and 254 of the Italian Civil Code, to be granted parental responsibility, a birth mother must recognise (riconoscimento) their child. This can be done upon the child’s birth while its birth certificate (atto di nascita) is being prepared, or by means of a simple declaration to the citizens’ registrar (ufficiale di stato civile) following the child’s birth – or even before, once the child has been conceived.

A child can be also recognised later by a public deed made by a notary (atto pubblico), or even in a will. However, according to Articles 256 and 257 of the Civil Code, in all cases, such acknowledgment is irrevocable and not subject to restriction.

The only conditions to a mother’s right to acknowledge parentage of a child are that the mother must have reached the minimum age of sixteen (if this is not the case, the child can be recognised anyway if the minor parent obtains authorisation by the judge), and that the child must not have been conceived by way of an incestuous relationship (however, according to Article 251 of the Civil Code, if the acknowledgement is deemed to be in the best interests of the child, it could be authorised by the judge even in this case).

The rules that apply to the acknowledgment of a child by the mother apply also to the acknowledgment of parentage by the father if the parents are not married (in this case, see 1.5 Relevance of Marriage at Point of Conception or Birth). However, according to Article 250 of the Italian Civil Code, if the child is not recognised jointly by the parents, the acknowledgment by the second parent (who, almost without exception, will be the father) is subject to the agreement of the parent who has already recognised the child (almost invariably the mother).

However, the consent to the acknowledgement by the mother cannot be withheld if its refusal is not deemed to be in the best interests of the child; in this case, the parent who wishes to acknowledge a child already recognised by the other parent can ask the judge to authorise the acknowledgment by court order.This order can also be applied with respect to child's last name, custody, visiting rights and financial support of the child.

In all cases, acknowledgment of a child who is at least fourteen years old cannot be made without that child’s consent.

Italian law provides that adoption is the only way to be granted parental responsibility for a non-biological child (see 1.7 Adoption).

However, people other than a child’s parents can be granted custody (affidamento) without acquiring parental responsibility when the child’s biological parents are deemed unfit to exercise parental responsibility but the situation is not serious enough to justify a full adoption. In this case, the court will put in place measures targeted at monitoring the situation, possibly by the appointment of social workers.

Since 2014, all residual differences between the children of married or non-married couples have been removed (one of these being, for example, that children of married couples were referred to as “legitimate” children, and those of non-married children were referred to as “natural” children).

However, according to the presumption of paternity (presunzione di paternità) set out by Article 231 of the Italian Civil Code, parental responsibility for the child of a married couple belongs, automatically, to the husband of the child’s mother, without any need for acknowledgement of the child being conceived or born during the marriage.

According to Article 232 of the Civil Code, presumption of paternity applies when a child is born between the date of the parents’ wedding and three hundred days after the annulment of their marriage or their divorce, or the first appearance of the parties before the judge in legal separation proceedings.

While Italian Law No 76 of 20 May 2016 on same-sex unions does not specifically allow for any kind of adoption, and, in Italy, any kind of heterologous medically assisted procreation is forbidden, according to a June 2016 decision (Cass., 22 giugno 2016, No 12962), the Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) confirmed that, at least in principle, and if this is deemed to be in the best interests of the child, a step-child adoption (adozione in casi particolari – see 1.7 Adoption) can take place within the context of a same-sex relationship (unione civile fra coppie dello stesso sesso).

In Italy, there are two main types of adoption: legitimating (adozione legittimante), where a child assumes the same position in a family as a biological child, such as in national and international adoption; and non-legitimating adoption (adozione non legittimante), which has more limited effects. All facets of adoption are subject to the provisions of the Law No 184 of 4 May 1983.

While, for both legitimating and non-legitimating adoption, the adoptive parents are granted full parental responsibility for the child, the main difference between both types of adoption is that the latter does not remove the existing filial ties with the members of the child’s biological family.

National adoption (Articles 6-28 of Law No 184 of 4 May 1983) is only open to married couples living together continually for at least three years and thus able to guarantee that the adoptee can rely on the stability of their relationship. The age of the adoptive parents must usually be between 18 and 45 years more than that of the child. It is possible to adopt several children, preferably siblings.

In order to be subject to adoption, a child must be declared adoptable by the Tribunale per i Minorenni based on a declaration of adoptability (dichiarazione diadottabilità) issued by a juvenile court in a specific order – such as at the end of court proceedings to establish a state of enduring abandonment (eg, if the child is already in foster care, provided that this situation has not been forced on the parents by exceptional circumstances).

A second procedure then takes place, again before the juvenile court, upon the request of the would-be adoptive parents. Their fitness as parents is ascertained, usually with the involvement of social workers after a period of pre-adoptive custody lasting one year (extendable to two) and a final verification that the adoption is in the best interests of the child and that all conditions required by the law have been fulfilled. Children of 12, or considered mature enough to have a say if younger, must agree to be adopted.

International adoption is governed by Articles 29-43 of Law No 184 of 4 May 1983 and concerns the adoption by couples resident in Italy of foreign children declared adoptable in their country of origin. The adoption must take place in accordance with the principles set by the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993. The process is open to couples who, upon request, have been declared fit to adopt by the juvenile court, and it takes place following complex proceedings held in cooperation with specifically authorised organisations. International adoption has the same effect as national adoption.

According to Articles 44-57 of Law No 184 of 4 May 1983, non-legitimating adoption is referred to as “adoption in specific situations” (adozione in casi particolari), and it allows for the adoption of a child who has not been declared to be in state of enduring abandonment in the following four cases:

  • when the child is orphaned by two parents and has been in the custody of relatives or a person to whom they have a stable, long-term relationship;
  • when one spouse wishes to adopt the biological or adoptive child of the other;
  • when the child has a physical or mental impairment; and
  • when pre-adoptive custody is not possible.

This kind of adoption requires the agreement of any child older than fourteen and of their biological parents and their spouse (in Italy it is possible for a minor to enter into a marriage, provided that the minor is at least sixteen years’ old and has been authorised by the court), but, if consent is refused without justification, the juvenile court can order the adoption (this cannot happen if the biological parents refusing consent for the adoption still exercise parental responsibility on the would-be adoptee, or if the consent is refused by the spouse of the adoptee, provided that the couple lives together).

“Adozione in casi particolari” is subject to revocation in certain very specific cases.

In accordance with Article 316 of the Italian Civil Code, as with any decision of importance affecting a child, relocation to another country requires the agreement of both parents, even if the child is in the sole custody of one parent.

Without the required parental consent, a child’s relocation has to be authorised by the court (Tribunale).

If the child’s parents are co-habiting, proceedings for applying for the relocation must be held in simplified form according to Article 473 bis.38 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure which applies to all disputes concerning decisions regarding children of non-legally separated or divorced couples. However, if, after the filing of the petition, one of the parties applies for a full legal separation or custody judgment, the case should be dealt with within this new context, and only urgent and temporary measures will be looked at on a more simplified basis.

If the issue of relocation arises when proceedings for legal separation, divorce or custody of a child born of non-married parents are already pending, the relevant measures will fall within the competence of the same judge of those proceedings and will be treated within the scope of these, possibly by means of a provisional order, according to Article 473 bis.23 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.

If the parents disagreeing on relocation are already legally separated or divorced or, since they are not married, a final order concerning custody of their child has already been issued, proceedings concerning relocation will have the purpose of modifying orders concerning children already in place, and should take the same form as legal separation, divorce and custody proceedings, according to Article 473 bis.47 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.

In all cases, the judge must hear any child of at least 12 years’ old, or, if younger, deemed mature enough to have a say, as already stated in 1.1 Parental Responsibility and, according to Article 473 bis.8 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, may appoint a guardian ad litem (curatore speciale, or lawyer, not to be confused with the curatore speciale of Article 321 of the Italian Civil Code – see 1.1 Parental Responsibility). A lawyer such as this is appointed in almost every serious case, but in particular when parents appear unable to fairly represent their child in court, or whenever a child of 14 or older asks a judge to represent them. After their appointment, this person will act as the attorney of the child (who therefore becomes to all effects party to the judgment) and may also be given by the court the power to represent the child outside the context of the pending proceedings, to carry out certain acts such as those required to fulfil the child’s best interests.

Once the appropriate proceedings have been followed, in order to assess whether the move is compatible with the child’s best interests, according to article 473 bis.25 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure the judge may appoint a court expert (consulente tecnico di ufficio) who will usually be required to provide, in writing, a full evaluation of the situation of the family and set out the measures which, according to the expert’s opinion, are most likely to ensure the that the child’s needs are fulfilled (this includes visiting rights, if applicable). Each party will have the right to appoint their own expert (consulente tecnico di parte) to assist the court expert.

According to Article 473 bis.27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judge can also order the intervention of social services to evaluate the family situation and provide the court with a written report. The effectiveness and timeliness of social workers’ interventions are subject to broad variations, depending on where in Italy proceedings take place. While evaluating a case, social workers may avail themselves of the help of psychologists, who can be privately hired, in agreement with the parties, or, if no agreement is reached, can be employees of the same public agency to which the social workers belong or of other public organisations.

All decisions on relocation, regardless of their permanent or temporary nature, will be subject to appeal (or opposition, if rendered between parents still co-habiting), but will usually be immediately effective, even if challenged.

If no agreement is reached on arrangements regarding visiting rights and maintenance obligations, any judicial decision concerning relocation will settle issues and may contain provisions concerning travel expenses and the duty of each parent to accompany their child or to provide necessary travel arrangements.

Article 16 of the Constitution of Italy provides that every Italian citizen has the right to move abroad. When a conflict arises between two parents who are both fit to exercise responsibility over the decision concerning the relocation of a child, the court will generally be called upon to decide which of the parents will retain the child in question.

This means that, even if relocation is deemed to be problematic for the child, it may be authorised anyway if the best interests of the child dictate, above all other concerns, the preservation of their ties with the parent that is relocating or if the parent left behind is not able to fully meet the child’s needs.

However, various other options might also be possible if they serve the child’s best interests, even if they mean granting custody to parties (private or public) other than the parents, although this applies only in extreme cases.

In all cases, while deciding on a relocation issue, in order to evaluate whether a move is in the best interests of the child, the court will try to make a balanced assessment of factors that include the following:

  • the likely consequences of the move on meeting the basic needs of the child (eg, whether the environment of the country of destination is safe and healthy; whether housing needs are met; whether any special medical care needs of the child can be fully met after the move; whether the education of the child will be compromised by a move, etc);
  • the likely ability of the child to maintain a satisfying relationship with the parent and relatives left behind;
  • the ability of the parents to generate sufficient income to meet the expenses required to support the child both before and after the move;
  • the child’s likely ability to adapt to their new situation following relocation (which can be influenced by factors such as their ability to understand and speak the language of the country of destination; the compatibility of the school system of the destination country with the system of the country of origin; the existence of a network of familial or social relationships already in place in the destination country or the likely ability of the child to build new relationships upon arrival; the ability of the child to pursue, in the country of destination, sports, cultural activities and other hobbies which they enjoyed in their country of origin);
  • the likely negative consequences of the removal of the child from their habitual environment of a possible loss of social and familial relationships already established in the country of origin; and
  • new positive opportunities which could be available to the child after the move.

As indicated in 1.1 Parental Responsibility, before issuing an order on anything as major as a relocation, a judge must hear directly any children aged 12 years or younger if they are considered mature enough to have a say in the matter. The weight given to their opinion will be proportional to their maturity and to the seriousness of the motives on which their opinion appears to be grounded.

The wishes and feelings of the child will be taken into consideration if the child is considered old enough. It is very unlikely that a judicial decision on relocation would go against the clearly expressed wishes of a child approaching adulthood, which in Italy is age eighteen.

Even in very specific cases, for example, when a relationship among siblings is seriously compromised, or when the behaviour of one is a threat to the others, this principle can be subject to exceptions, and in evaluating an application to relocate, the Italian court will attach paramount importance to the need to keep siblings together.

The principle according to which all children have the right to full access to both of their parents (principio di bigenitorialità) is one of the pillars of the Italian family law system, and the risk of compromising the relationship between children and parents left behind in a relocation is one of the main obstacles which must be overcome when obtaining the authorisation to relocate from the Italian court.

However, this risk can be mitigated if the visiting rights of the non-relocating parent can be structured in such a way as to limit loss of contact, for example by granting this parent the right to have the child with them during most weekends and holidays. This would clearly be more straightforward if the country of destination in the relocation is not too difficult to reach.

There are no specific reasons for relocation towards which Italian courts are more sympathetic, although it is very helpful if the applicant can convince the judge that a move will not significantly unsettle the child’s usual routines, with the following scenarios being very favourable:

  • the relocation will not negatively affect the contact between the child and parent left behind;
  • the child is already fluent in the language of the destination country;
  • the child, while still in the country of origin, was already enrolled in a “foreign” school adopting the curriculum of the country of destination, or, upon arrival, will be enrolled in a school following the “domestic” system;
  • the material conditions of life of the child will likely improve after the move;
  • upon arrival in the country of destination, the child will retain good access to social and family networks already in place (as would happen in a moving-back scenario); and
  • broadly speaking, the move reasonably appears to be the best solution to current challenging issues that cannot be resolved if the child was to remain in the country of origin.

Furthermore, any application to relocate abroad will be viewed by the Italian court much more favourably if it is justified for serious and rational reasons, such as the need for access to special medical care unavailable in the country of origin, or the need to follow promising career opportunities. On the other hand, applications to move on whim will not be approved, unless every possible opposition to such a move can be convincingly challenged.

An application to relocate can be opposed if it goes against the best interests of the child. While, as already stated, all cases are different, typical reasons on which an opposition to a move abroad can be based include the following:

  • the living conditions in the country of destination will be dangerous due to political instability or widespread social or economic problems, or the legal system in the country of destination does not guarantee the protection of the rights of the child or the parent back in the country of origin;
  • the child is likely to face serious problems adapting to their new environment – eg, they cannot understand or speak the language of the country of destination, or the new school system is very different to the previous system;
  • the move will prevent the child from maintaining a meaningful relationship with parent left behind or will loosen or even sever ties with their habitual social and familial environment;
  • the emotional and financial costs of the child relocating with will difficult for the parent left behind; or
  • the move abroad will disrupt the habits and life of the child to such a degree that the reasons for opposing a move outnumber those in favour of relocating.

The cost of applying to relocate includes legal fees and, possibly, the cost of hiring experts if the court wishes to appoint an expert adviser (consulente tecnico di ufficio) and fees are very difficult to assess in advance as they can be freely agreed between the client and the attorney. However, while actual expenses can vary from between a few thousand euros in very simple cases and several tens of thousands of euros or more, the client can request an estimate of costs that might be incurred (preventivo).

A major factor affecting the cost of an application to relocate may be referred to as “procedural independence”, meaning that, if, on the one hand, an application to relocate is made within the context of already pending proceedings for legal separation, divorce or custody, the related costs will be diluted within the costs of the main judgment. The related costs can be minimal if the family situation has already been thoroughly evaluated. If, on the on the other hand, the same application is submitted to the court autonomously (ie, by starting proceedings directed only at obtaining an authorisation to relocate), its costs could be equal to or even exceed the costs of a “full” legal separation or divorce or custody judgement.

Finally, even if an application is successful, it should be not taken for granted that the court will require the unsuccessful party to pay the costs (this tends only to be the case when a relocation is opposed on that grounds that it is not for serious enough reasons) and, even in this case, it is very unlikely that the reimbursement will cover the entirety of the legal fees paid by successful party.

The time required to complete an application for relocation can vary from several weeks to a few months if the application is filed according to the simplified rules on the resolution of disagreements between parents who are still living together, or if it is filed within the context of a “full” legal separation, divorce, or custody proceedings that are already pending.

However, reaching a decision concerning relocation could require between many months and one or two years if the petition is filed in the form of an autonomous legal separation, divorce or custody judgment or in the form of a judgement aimed at modifying orders already in place between parents who have ceased living together officially. These timescales apply only to the first degree of the judgment.

According to Article 473 bis.15 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, the court can authorise the move by issuing a provisional order, which, at least in theory, and exceptionally, can be granted very quickly, and even in the absence of the other party, if proof is provided that any postponement would irreparably compromise the best interests of the child.

Italian courts treat relocation cases without any prejudice in favour of either party, but are very aware of the need to guarantee that children conserve meaningful contacts with either parent.

As stated in 1.1 Parental Responsibility, according to Italian law, all decisions concerning the place of dwelling and the relocation of a child fall within the scope of issues of major importance, and are therefore subject to the same serious treatment regardless of whether a move is domestic or international.

An internal relocation can, in fact, give rise to far more problems than an international one. For example, from a North Italian perspective, a “domestic” move to some remote location in southern Italy not within easy reach of an airport or a high-speed train station can have more radical consequences on contact between a child and the parent left behind than a move to a European capital city or, for example, to Switzerland.

It is important to note that any move within Italy that is carried out illegally can be subject to less effective remedies than an international abduction because the Hague Convention (see 3.2 Steps Taken to Return Abducted Children) will not apply. Consequently, any measures aimed at protecting the rights of the parent left behind would simply be dealt with internally, and handled much more slowly than the judgments dealt with on the fast-track basis reserved for Hague Convention return applications in particular, and for international cases in general.

Taking a child out of the Italian jurisdiction without the relevant consent referred to in section 2. Relocation is illegal, and may constitute a criminal offence under Article 574bis of the Italian Penal Code.

Italy is a signatory of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Consequently, if a child is abducted from Italy to another signatory country, it is possible to submit to the Italian Central Authority (the Dipartimento per la Giustizia minorile e di comunità del Ministero della Giustizia – Ufficio II – Autorità centrali convenzionali) an application for the return of the child according to its provisions.

Furthermore, provided that Italy is a European Union member State, if the child is abducted to another EU country, the implementation of the provisions of the Hague Convention will be strengthened by the additional rules set out in Articles 23-29 of Council regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 “on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction”.

These rules are aimed at a further acceleration of the treatment of a return application, and at ensuring that the courts of the member state where the child was habitually resident and from which the child has been illegally abducted retain their international competence on matters regarding parental responsibility (which also cover decisions concerning habitual residence), notwithstanding the denial of a return application, whenever the related decision is grounded solely on the reasons set out in Article 13 of the Hague Convention (ie, when the child is found to have been abducted from the country where they were habitually resident but the parent left behind was not actually exercising custody rights, or when a return would expose the child to serious risk).

This means that, according to the EU Regulation system, the final decision concerning the return of the child is taken by the judicial authority of the country from which the child has been abducted, because, even if the authorities of the country of destination were to deny the return application made under the provisions of the Hague Convention, a subsequent order of return issued by the courts of the country of origin, which retain their jurisdiction, would be fully enforceable.

If, conversely, the child has been taken to a country which is not a signatory of the Hague Convention, lacking any bilateral agreement, the only effective way to pursue their return would be to obtain an order to that effect from the authorities of the same country.

As stated, Italy is a signatory of the Hague Convention and, therefore, if an abducted child is taken within its jurisdiction, the provisions concerning their return will be fully applied.

The intervention of the Italian Central Authority is free of charge, and judicial proceedings related to an application for the return of a child do not require the active participation of the applicant, who, therefore, is not obliged to instruct a lawyer. However, any legal assistance (which is not essential but may be strongly recommended) should be paid according to the terms agreed between client and attorney.

Furthermore, in several Hague Convention signatory countries, in order to apply for the return of a child it may be necessary to appoint a lawyer who must be paid according to the rules in place in the same country. Official data concerning numbers of Hague Convention cases processed in Italy can be found on the website of the Italian Ministry of Justice at the following link.

While official data does not contain information on the outcome of Hague Convention applications for return processed by the Italian authorities, the treatment of the related proceedings within the Italian jurisdiction is mostly unbiased and respectful of the principles underlying the Convention, with fairness shown to the positions of the parties applying for immediate return as well as to the parties opposing the application, with the best interests of the children involved generally the only factor considered.

According to Article 7 of Law No 64 of 15 January 1994 implementing the Hague Convention provisions within Italian Jurisdiction, applications for the return of children abducted to Italy must be treated as follows.

  • Any request for the return of the child from abroad is processed by the Italian Central Authority, which will usually entrust an office of the police specialised in treating juvenile cases with an initial assessment of the situation. This generally entails summoning the parent who has the child in order: (a) to confirm the presence of the latter; (b) to see if the former is willing to spontaneously return the child; and (c), if this is not the case, to gather any additional information.
  • If the abducting parent does not agree to return the child to their country of habitual residence, an application must immediately be transmitted to the public prosecutor’s office attached to the relevant juvenile court (pubblico ministero presso il tribunale per i minorenni) in the place where the child has been abducted (in Italy, there are 26 court-of-appeal districts, each also being the seat of a juvenile court).
  • The public prosecutor will immediately submit to the juvenile court an urgent request (ricorso urgente) for an order of return of the child, opening proceedings to this effect, and the president of the court will issue an order setting the day of the hearing and the deadlines for the filing of the written defence of the parent who has the child.
  • While the “essential” parties in the proceedings are the public prosecutor and the parent opposing the application, who must be heard regardless (as must the child if aged 12 at least, or considered mature enough to express an opinion if younger), the applicant parent will be informed about the hearing by the Central Authority and has the right to appear in court and take a position in the proceedings at their own expense.
  • The proceedings should be carried out expeditiously as possible, without any formalities, and will usually end with a final order after a single exchange of written defences and one hearing. While the court can examine any proof submitted by the parties and order any fact-finding as it sees fit (including hearing witnesses and appointing court experts), such related activities will be limited to only what appears to be strictly necessary, or may be rejected altogether in favour of speed (for example, while uncommon, the imposed deadline for written statement of a few days, or even 24 hours, is not unheard of).
  • The final order by the juvenile court is subject to a limited type of appeal (ricorso per cassazione) before the Corte di Cassazione, or Italian Supreme Court, which can only revoke or modify the order if it has been issued without complying to specific law provisions, being barred from any new assessment of the facts. Furthermore, the order or first degree will usually not be stayed if appealed.
  • The deadline set by law requiring the final order to be issued by the juvenile court within 30 days of the date upon which the application for the return of the child was submitted to the Central Authority is not realistic, and the actual average timescale of the first degree of proceedings for return can vary between a few months to a year. Second-degree proceedings before the Corte di Cassazione will take much longer, but, as stated, with no stay of the first order (which is highly unlikely), this will have a limited impact on the outcome of the return application if it has been successful in the first degree of the judgment.

Italy is a signatory of the Hague Convention.

Studio Emidia Zanetti Vitali

7 Via Chiossetto
20122
Milano
Italy

+39 02 7600 3457

+39 02 7601 6233

romualdo.richichi@gmail.com www.zanettivitali.it
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Author



Studio Zanetti Vitali was founded by Professor Emidia Zanetti Vitali in 1997 and is a boutique firm located in Milan with six independent lawyers providing high-end national and international clients with individually tailored advice and assistance on all aspects of civil law involving private (ie, non-commercial) parties. Studio Zanetti Vitali’s main fields of experience are litigation before all Italian courts and non-contentious dispute resolution concerning primarily – but not exclusively – legal separation, divorce, child custody, inheritance, paternity and guardianship. Studio Zanetti Vitali lawyers also have significant experience in coordinating international legal teams following trans-border disputes and settlements concerning family and inheritance issues.

Recent Trends Affecting Child Relocation in Italy

The most significant developments affecting the relocation of children in Italy can be summarised as follows.

  • The Italian courts are focusing on treating parents as equals in matters relating to children.
  • More importance is given to listening to children in potential relocation situations. 
  • The recent reform of civil procedures (“riforma Cartabia”) has radically changed – and not necessarily for the better – the way civil proceedings are handled, and introduced a new, standard process applicable for cases involving matrimonial and parental responsibility judgments.

These three developments affect not only instances of child relocation, but almost all cases involving responsibility for children, and they are hugely significant when handling disputes over an international move involving a child.

Granting parity between parents

Joint custody (affidamento condiviso) has been a standard requirement in Italy since Law No 54 of 8 February 2006 made sole custody (affidamento esclusivo) an exceptional option, viable only when joint custody is impossible.

In the first years after the above change, the provision concerning joint custody was implemented mostly formally, because, on the one hand, even when the custody was given to one parent only, all the most important decisions (decisioni di maggiore importanza) concerning a child (eg, school enrollment, sports, etc) and all consent (such as that required  to apply for ID documents, or to travel abroad) required the agreement of both parents.

On the other hand, in cases of joint custody, it was customary for the habitual residence of the child (collocazione abitativa prevalente) to remain with one of the parents (usually, but not necessarily, the mother) who acted as the primary caregiver, while the other parent spent every other week end with the child, and possibly one or two additional nights per week, and  also part of the portion of the school holidays.

The prevalence of joint-custody arrangements meant that, when the parent with whom the child was placed (genitore collocatario) and who acted as the principal caregiver, decided to relocate with the child, it was very difficult for the other parent to prevent the court from authorising the move. This is because the alternative, which was placing the child with the other parent, implied a change of the principal caregiver, and, consequently, was seen as potentially more damaging to the child than a relocation. In many cases, a relocation simply led to a limited rearrangement of the visiting rights of the parent left behind, who, for example, might be granted the right to spend a larger share of weekends or holidays with the child.

In recent years, however, the approach of Italian courts to joint custody has changed dramatically. The idea that one parent should act as a principal caregiver has been put aside in favour of the idea that children have the right to spend an equal share of their life with either parent according to a set calendar, granting each parent more or less equal amounts of time  – even if this might deprive the child of a true family “home”, forcing them to deal with the logistical issues of constantly being on the move with school books and other material and equipment from one parent’s home to the next.

It goes without saying that this new approach to child custody and placement also has major consequences on disputes concerning child relocation. While, in the past, denying an application to relocate filed by the main caregiver meant risking upsetting a situation in which the roles of the parents were clearly determined and, therefore, in many cases, was not a viable option, in the new situation, where each parent has equal rights, an order authorising a relocation, either domestic or international, must be assessed only on the best interests of the child involved, since there are no major problems to work out around how a child will preserve a good relationship with one of the parents. The new emphasis on parity of the parents has potentially made it much more difficult to obtain authorisation to relocate without the consent of the other party, particularly when the reasons for the move do not really serve the child’s interests but are more for the personal pursuits, however legitimate, of the parent wishing to move.

Listening to the children

Hearing children in Italian civil proceedings has been mandatory for a long time according to several provisions of law (including the general rules of Articles 315bis of the Italian Civil Code, and 337octies, concerning custody and visiting rights, which also applies to cases of disputed relocation) introduced into the Italian system for alignment with the principles of the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.

The above-mentioned provisions, however, were subject to one exception that allowed judges to entirely dispense with a hearing whenever they deemed that it would not be in the best interests of a child, or that it would be redundant; the problem was that this “exception” ended up being treated as the rule and that, in practice, children were heard in court very rarely – and generally very reluctantly.

All this changed in 2022 following legislative Act 206 of 26 November 2021 which made it obligatory to appoint a guardian ad litem (curatore speciale) who would act as an attorney for a child and become an independent party for almost all disputed cases impacting on custody and visiting rights, such as those concerning relocations.

According to the new text of Article 78 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (now Article 473 bis.8, following the full implementation of the reform), a guardian must be appointed not only in cases of forfeiture of parental responsibility, or adoption, or when the parents appear unable to represent the best interests of the child, but, also, whenever a child of 14 years of age so demands, and whenever the judge deems the parents to be temporarily unable to represent the child, which, according to interpretation given to the relevant provision by many courts, will be the case whenever the parents disagree on a major issue such an international relocation.

The consequences of the new relevance given by the reform of Italian civil procedures to the personal position of a child underscores the existence of a trend towards a real focus on only the interests of children in any judicial decision concerning a relocation. However, while it can be said that adding an independent guardian can allow a more objective evaluation of the position of the child, introducing a third party could add a new layer of complexity and further uncertainty for parents.

Impact of the Cartabia Reform

The new development with the most meaningful impact on parental equality and responsibility and affecting child-relocation matters is the “legge Cartabia”, the reform of civil procedures, or the Cartabia Reform, implemented from March 2023.

Among the many indisputed benefits of the reform, it is fairly difficult to identify any simplifications to solutions that it provides to disputes concerning matters of child relocation. Previously, when no agreement between parents could be reached, many courts were able to handle the issue with simple procedures, which is no longer the case.

Before the Cartabia reform, there was no general procedure in Italy for family cases, and judgments falling outside the procedure of legal separation and divorce cases, such as judgments concerning parental responsibility for children of unmarried couples, were treated as judgments held within the chamber of council, meaning trials in closed session – which were very simplified judgments, regulated by a single law provision, Article 738 of Italy’s Code of Civil Procedure, according to which the panel of the court, before any decision, had the authority to gather information (assumereinformazioni). This meant that, in cases related to children, the court could issue orders over fact-finding activities as it saw fit, ranging from none at all (which meant that a decision could be reached in a few weeks) to appointing experts, hearing witnesses and anything else (which meant that proceedings could span years).

However legal separation, divorce, and all other proceedings shared one common feature, which was that, after a single exchange of written defences – an initial application and a response, which required only the attachment of basic documentation, such as tax statements and public registry certificates – the parties appeared before a judge (or a panel, depending on the nature of the case) empowered to issue provisional orders. In most cases, this judge was able to broker an agreed solution and could immediately grant temporary measures which allowed the parties to manage at least the more urgent issues related to relocation (eg, accepting employment offers; finalising house rentals or purchases and making arrangements concerning school enrolments or health insurance). 

Conversely, under the new Cartabia procedure, in order to speed up the proceedings after the active intervention of the judge, almost all the weight of the process related to the defence of the parties is now allocated to the initial phase of the judgment: this means that, before appearing in court for the first hearing, according to article 473 bis.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner is required to file three separate written defences (the first petition and two extended briefs by which all requests directed at fact-finding must be submitted to the court), while the defendant will be called to submit two different briefs.

Additionally, the deadlines for submitting the last two defences are very tight, requiring that replies be filed within five or ten days from the filing of the preceding briefs, notwithstanding the fact that, due to technicalities related to the functioning of the IT system adopted by Italian courts, full days may pass before a defence filed by one of the party become available to the other. Furthermore, whenever proceedings involve children, both parties are required to attach to the first written defences a large quantity of documents, which, at least in theory, should reveal their financial position, even if neither of them has made a financial request.   

Before the Cartabia Reform, whenever talks concerning a possible relocation between parents who had already ceased to live together in an “official” way (being legally separated or, if unmarried, having obtained orders concerning custody) entered an impasse, starting proceedings immediately tended to be a very sensible choice, since there was a reasonable expectation that the intervention of the judge could soon bring about an agreement or a decision without forcing the parties to incur in excessive expenses. Currently, the actions required by the new proceedings are so onerous that it might be better to seek any possible alternative before resorting to them.   

According to Article 473 bis.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties may request an urgent order (provvedimenti indifferibili). Although these types of urgent orders should not be issued in the context of already pending proceedings, it would be possible to apply for them if a relocation is so imminent that it would be impossible to wait for the outcome of an ordinary judgement; consequently, applying for an urgent order would not be a viable option whenever a decision is needed concerning a move abroad well in advance of a move.

Therefore, a contested relocation can still possibly be handled fairly simply only when the parents disagreeing over the move are still living together (ie, not legally separated or divorced), because, in this case, the authorisation to relocate could be sought by starting the simplified proceedings set out in article 473 bis.38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, even in this case, if, after the filing of the petition, one of the parties applies for a “full” legal separation or custody judgment, the case should be dealt with in the context of the latter proceedings, and only urgent and temporary measures could be taken in the simplified judgment. 

Conclusion

While a full evaluation of the impact of the three developments, possibly affecting judicial decisions on child relocation in the Italian legal system, summarily described above, will take some years, particularly with regard to the implementation of the Cartabia Reform, it can be concluded that, at least in “usual” situations, where parental responsibility is shared, the three trends will make it more difficult for one parent to force upon the other a decision to relocate abroad with a child much more difficult than in the past, even if the party willing to move is already the main caregiver, and especially if the decision to move, despite being legitimate, is not grounded on reasons directly serving the child’s interest, but rather those of the parent wishing to move. 

This means that, while the importance of seeking agreed solutions to relocation issues has become increasingly important, the position of the party who stands to be left behind has got much stronger. This same party can secure more favourable terms in exchange for agreeing to the relocation of a child with the other parent, and can thereby also negotiate the visiting rights and financial terms that they consider fair. Care must always be taken that consent for a child to move abroad should not be “sold”, or mean an exemption from contributions to a child’s maintenance costs.

Studio Emidia Zanetti Vitali

Avv. Romualdo Richichi
Studio Emidia Zanetti Vitali
7 Via Chiossetto
20122 Milano
Italy

+39 02 7600 3457

+39 02 7601 6233

romualdo.richichi@gmail.com www.zanettivitali.it
Author Business Card

Law and Practice

Author



Studio Zanetti Vitali was founded by Professor Emidia Zanetti Vitali in 1997 and is a boutique firm located in Milan with six independent lawyers providing high-end national and international clients with individually tailored advice and assistance on all aspects of civil law involving private (ie, non-commercial) parties. Studio Zanetti Vitali’s main fields of experience are litigation before all Italian courts and non-contentious dispute resolution concerning primarily – but not exclusively – legal separation, divorce, child custody, inheritance, paternity and guardianship. Studio Zanetti Vitali lawyers also have significant experience in coordinating international legal teams following trans-border disputes and settlements concerning family and inheritance issues.

Trends and Developments

Author



Studio Zanetti Vitali was founded by Professor Emidia Zanetti Vitali in 1997 and is a boutique firm located in Milan with six independent lawyers providing high-end national and international clients with individually tailored advice and assistance on all aspects of civil law involving private (ie, non-commercial) parties. Studio Zanetti Vitali’s main fields of experience are litigation before all Italian courts and non-contentious dispute resolution concerning primarily – but not exclusively – legal separation, divorce, child custody, inheritance, paternity and guardianship. Studio Zanetti Vitali lawyers also have significant experience in coordinating international legal teams following trans-border disputes and settlements concerning family and inheritance issues.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

{{searchBoxHeader}}

Select Topic(s)

loading ...
{{topic.title}}

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.