Family Abuse and Minors: Cassation Ruling 20128/2025 Redefines the Aggravating Circumstance

The protection of minors is an undisputed priority in our legal system, especially when it comes to domestic violence. Family abuse, already a serious crime in itself, takes on an even more alarming connotation and deserves severe repression when committed in the presence of a minor. On this delicate balance between criminal conduct and its impact on the youngest, the Court of Cassation has ruled with the recent judgment no. 20128 of May 22, 2025 (filed on May 29, 2025), offering a fundamental interpretation that clarifies the boundaries of the aggravating circumstance provided for by art. 572, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code.

The Aggravating Circumstance of Family Abuse: Regulatory Context and Protection of the Minor

Article 572 of the Criminal Code punishes anyone who abuses a family member or cohabitant, or a person subject to their authority or entrusted to them for reasons of education, instruction, care, supervision, or custody, or for the exercise of a profession or trade. This is a crime that protects the physical and psychological integrity of the victim, but also the serenity and harmony of family relationships, considered primary legal assets. The legislator intended to send a strong signal against all forms of violence perpetrated in the domestic environment, aware of the deep scars it can leave.

Paragraph two of art. 572 of the Criminal Code, as amended by Law of July 19, 2019, no. 69 (the so-called “Red Code”), introduces a specific aggravating circumstance when the act is committed in the presence of or to the detriment of a minor. This provision aims to strengthen the protection of children, recognizing the trauma that can result even from simply witnessing episodes of violence between adults, as well as from direct violence.

The judgment 20128/2025 of the Supreme Court, presided over by Dr. G. F. and reported by Dr. D. T., intervenes precisely to define with greater precision when this aggravating circumstance can be considered integrated, annulling with referral the previous ruling of the Court of Appeal of Milan.

For the integration of the aggravated offense of abuse committed in the presence of a minor, pursuant to art. 572, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code, it is not sufficient for the minor to witness a single episode in which the abusive conduct materializes, but it is necessary that the number, quality, and recurrence of the episodes witnessed are such as to infer the risk of compromising their normal psycho-physical development.

This maxim of the Court of Cassation is of crucial importance. Often, in common language, the idea of "presence" can be understood in a merely physical and occasional way. The Cassation, however, raises the bar, clarifying that it is not enough for the minor to be physically present at a single episode of abuse for the aggravating circumstance to be triggered. The Court requires a more in-depth and complex analysis, which takes into account a broader framework. The objective is not to punish mere spatial concomitance, but to protect the minor from the concrete risk of harm to their psycho-physical development. This means that the child's exposure to violence must be systematic, or at least sufficiently serious and repeated, to generate an effective danger to their growth and their emotional and psychological well-being. It is therefore not an automatic consequence, but requires careful assessment by the judge on a case-by-case basis, such as the one involving the defendant P. P.M. R. P.

The Cassation's Decision: Criteria and Practical Implications

The judgment 20128/2025 of the Supreme Court annuls the previous decision with referral, highlighting how the Court of Appeal of Milan did not adequately consider the necessary criteria for applying the aggravating circumstance. The Cassation emphasizes that for the configurability of the aggravating circumstance, it is essential to jointly evaluate:

• The number of episodes: how many events did the minor witness? A single episode, however serious, might not be sufficient if it is not part of a broader context.
• The quality of the episodes: what was the nature of the abuse? Was it physical, verbal, or psychological violence? Their intensity and brutality are determining factors.
• The recurrence of the episodes: how frequently did they occur? Habitual or repeated conduct has a very different impact than an isolated incident.

These elements must be such as to "infer the risk of compromising their normal psycho-physical development." This implies that the judge must ascertain not only the minor's presence during the violent acts but also the capacity of these acts, due to their repetition and seriousness, to negatively affect the child's mental health and growth. This interpretation aligns with the jurisprudential evolution which, as demonstrated by previous consistent maxims (e.g., no. 31929 of 2024), tends towards greater protection of minors, avoiding purely formalistic interpretations of the norm.

Protection of Minors in Italian and European Law: A Constant Commitment

The Cassation's decision is part of a regulatory and cultural framework that views the protection of minors as a fundamental value. Internationally, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by Italy with Law 176/1991) enshrines the child's right to be protected from all forms of violence, abuse, or mistreatment. Nationally, art. 31 of the Constitution commits the Republic to protecting childhood and youth. Jurisprudence, with rulings like 20128/2025, interprets these principles, seeking to translate them into practical criteria that guarantee effective and not merely formal protection.

It is essential that legal professionals, as well as civil society, understand the scope of these decisions. Witnessed violence is recognized as a form of abuse in itself, with devastating effects on children's psychological well-being, which can manifest in behavioral disorders, anxiety, depression, and relational difficulties. The Cassation's approach, which requires a comprehensive analysis of the situation, aims to capture precisely the profound dimension of the harm suffered by the minor.

Conclusions: A Step Forward in Protecting the Most Vulnerable

Judgment no. 20128 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification and a significant step forward in the jurisprudence on family abuse and the protection of minors. It reiterates the need for careful and non-superficial analysis of violent family dynamics, emphasizing the effective risk of compromising the minor's psycho-physical development. Mere presence is no longer sufficient; rather, proof of a context of habitual violence or episodes of such seriousness and recurrence as to seriously undermine the child's serenity and growth is required. This ruling strengthens the State's commitment to protecting the most vulnerable, offering legal professionals more precise tools to effectively prosecute those responsible and to ensure justice for the innocent victims of domestic violence.