Disavowal of Paternity: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Balance Between Biological Truth and the Best Interest of the Child (Ruling No. 5219/2024)

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court, No. 5219 of February 27, 2024, addresses a delicate issue of great social relevance: the disavowal of paternity. In this context, the Court had to balance the right to biological truth with the superior interest of the child, a topic that has raised and will continue to raise debates and reflections in the courts of justice and among Italian families.

The Case at Hand and Previous Decisions

The case originated from an appeal filed by the Special Curator of the minor D.D., which led to the declaration of disavowal of paternity of B.B. towards the minor. The Court of Appeal of Perugia had initially rejected the appeal filed by B.B. and A.A., confirming the legitimacy of the appointment of the special curator and the adequacy of the investigations conducted. However, the appellants contested the decision, arguing that the situation and the interest of the minor were not adequately considered.

The balance between the right to personal identity linked to the assertion of biological truth and the interest in certainty of "status" and stability of family relations is fundamental in these delicate matters.

The Legal Principle Stated by the Court

The Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle: it is not sufficient to assert the favor veritatis (the favor for the truth) without considering the effects that the disavowal of paternity could have on the minor. This means that the child's right to personal identity must be considered in relation to the emotional and personal bonds already established, particularly when it concerns a minor under twelve years of age. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt an approach that balances these interests, avoiding the sacrifice of one in favor of the other.

The Omissions of the Court of Appeal

The Supreme Court accepted the grounds for appeal relating to the omission of investigations into the real interest of the minor and the necessity of hearing her. Listening to the minor, in fact, is considered a necessary fulfillment and cannot be replaced by other forms of investigation. The lack of a thorough examination regarding the interest of the minor led to the annulment of the contested ruling, emphasizing the importance of considering her emotional and psychological needs.

• The necessity of balancing biological truth and the interest of the minor.
• The centrality of listening to the minor in decisions concerning her.
• The role of the special curator in protecting the interests of the minor.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling No. 5219/2024 of the Supreme Court represents an important step forward in the protection of children's rights, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that takes into account both the right to truth and the superior interest of the minor. This ruling not only clarifies the legal principles regarding the disavowal of paternity but also offers insights for future cases involving the delicacy of family relationships and the identity of the youngest.