For the Supreme Court, if a separate couple has a conflictual relationship, it is right to establish strict procedures and times for visiting the father, if you want to protect the minor.
The Supreme Court, With the’ordinance No.. 22219/2018 returns to the topic of foster care, demonstrating a great sensitivity towards minors. It establishes that, in the moment in which a separate couple presents a highly conflictual relationship, , it is correct that the trial judge orders rigid times and modalities of visit, if it serves to prevent the child defending himself from the continuous quarrels of the parents.
The trial case
In 2012 the Court of Rome declares the personal separation between two spouses and provides for the shared custody of the daughter with placement with the mother, assignee of the family home and establishes the arrangements for visiting the father and the extent of the contribution due to him for the maintenance of the minor.
The Court of Appeal in Rome, asked by her husband, modifies the modality of attendance between father and minor daughter, rejecting other questions. The losing party appeals to the Supreme Court, complaining among the various reasons for the appeal, the fact that both trial judges would have applied the custody regime shared as if it were an exclusive custody, providing the possibility for the minor (in the present case) to see the father for a single day a week and thus damaging the right of the minor to receive care, education and instruction with equal presence of both parents.
The Court of Legitimacy, willing to protect primarily the interests of the child, order No.. 22219/2018, establishing on the right of visit of the father said that the rule of shared custody of the children to both parents does not rule out that the child is placed with one of the parents and that a specific regime of visit is established with the other parent (Cass. n. 18131/2013). The Supreme Court has in fact affirmed that it pertains to the powers of the trial judge to provide a concrete regulation of the visit regime according to procedures that can not be disputed , in their specific articulations , in the judgment of legitimacy, where it is possible to report that the trial judge has proceeded to regulate the attendance of parents declaring to be inspired by different criteria from the moral and material exclusive interest of children.
In this case the territorial court has correctly understood to refer to these principles where, after having recorded the good conditions of the minor even in the presence of an exaggerated conflict between the parents, it has proceeded to establish a strict time and modality of attendance between the father and the descendant to sedate the ongoing conflict between parents and prevent the child from being forced to defend herself from their conflicts.