x
Our website uses cookies. By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of these cookies. To learn more about how we use the cookies and how you can manage them, please see our cookies policy.
Placement of Children and Shared Parenting: the Rome Court's Decision (9 October 2025)
The Rome case: children remain in the family home, parents alternate
A recent order of the Court of Rome (9 October 2025) has reignited debate by placing the minor children in the family home while requiring the parents to alternate residence in that same home on a rotating basis. Although widely discussed, this solution is not entirely new: other courts have adopted similar measures in the past and more recently.
The Civitavecchia precedent (16 June 2025) and the legal basis
Among these, the Court of Civitavecchia, by order under Article 473-bis.22 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure dated 16 June 2025, ordered equal placement of two minor children (aged 8 and 11) in the family home, with the parents alternating weekly.
The rationale is twofold: safeguarding the children’s familiar living environment and ensuring effective shared parenting.
In the same order, the court also addressed the parental dispute over the child’s residence, clarifying that any conflict on where the minor should live must be resolved preventively, not ex post, by the judicial authority.
The court further held that a parent’s constitutional right to move residence with the child must be balanced against the child’s equally constitutional rights to healthy growth, harmonious development of personality, and, despite family breakdown, balanced, adequate relationships with both parents.
Moving a child’s residence: the criteria applied by the courts
When assessing a proposed move, the courts consider multiple factors, including:
Reasons for the move by the residential parent (not limited to better pay or a social change).
Time and modalities of contact between the child and the non-residential parent (assessed both if the child moves and if only the parent moves).
Willingness of the non-residential parent to relocate.
Protection of the child’s relationships with other significant figures (relatives, friends).
Impact on the child’s psyche, considering needs for environmental, relational, emotional and psychological stability.
Quality of the new family environment compared with the child’s current environment.
Child’s age (older children may better maintain continuity of relationship despite distance).
Child’s expressed wish to move.
Court of Appeal of Rome (30 October 2025): confirmation
The Court of Appeal of Rome fully confirmed the Civitavecchia order on 30 October 2025, rejecting the mother’s appeal and finding no valid grounds to modify either the placement of the minors or the regulation of parent-child contact.
As to the criteria, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the mother–child relocation cannot be ordered solely because it reflects the child’s preference expressed at the hearing; the various factors must be weighed together to identify the solution most protective and consistent with the child’s best interests.
For an assessment of your case and to define the most appropriate strategy in the child’s best interests, please contact our Family Law team via the contact form or email info@giambronelaw.com or click here.