R. M. and the Evasion of Judicial Provisions: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Section VI, No. 12976 of 2020
The ruling of the Court of Cassation on February 19, 2020, No. 12976, addresses a highly relevant issue in family law, particularly concerning the custody of minors and the legal consequences of evading judicial provisions. In this case, R. M. was convicted for preventing supervised visits between her daughter and the father, but the Court raised important doubts about the configurability of the crime of evasion.
The Case of R. M. and the Allegations Made
R. M. was initially convicted for evading a court order that established supervised visits with the minor's father. However, the Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta subsequently declared the defendant not punishable, recognizing the particular triviality of the act. Subsequently, R. M. appealed to the Court of Cassation, contesting several aspects of the ruling.
- First complaint: rejection of the request for adjournment due to the professional commitment of the defense attorney.
- Second complaint: rejection of a request for adjournment for health reasons.
- Third complaint: lack of examination of the reasons justifying the defendant's behavior.
In this context, the concept of evasion cannot simply be equated with non-compliance, requiring a more in-depth assessment of the circumstances of the case.
The Decisions of the Court of Cassation
The Court of Cassation found the first two complaints regarding the rejection of the requests for adjournment to be unfounded. However, it accepted the criticisms related to the failure to consider exculpatory evidence and the confusion between evasion and non-compliance by the Court of Appeal. The Court specified that in order for the crime of evasion to be configured, it is necessary for the parent to act in bad faith in evading the obligations imposed by the judge, and it should not be a mere failure to comply.
Conclusions
The ruling of the Court of Cassation represents an important reflection on the rights of parents and their duties towards minors. The distinction between evasion and non-compliance is crucial for the defense of parental rights and the protection of the well-being of minors. The Court ordered a new trial, calling for a more careful assessment of the factual circumstances and the evidence presented. This ruling emphasizes the importance of a rigorous interpretation of the laws and legal principles, so that justice can be truly fair and balanced.
