The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, no. 19069 of 2024, offers important points for reflection regarding the regulation of shared custody and the visitation rights of parents in the event of separation. The Court addressed an appeal concerning the custody of a minor, C. C., and tackled fundamental issues for the protection of parental rights and the well-being of the child.
The proceedings originated from a complaint filed by B. B. against the decree of the Court of Macerata, which had ordered shared custody of the minor with placement with the mother. The Court of Appeal, however, modified the father's visitation arrangements, establishing a limited visitation regime, considering the child's age, who was just over two years old at the time of the ruling.
The appellant A. A. argued that the provisions of the Court of Appeal were contrary to the principle of dual parenthood and detrimental to the child's development, also referencing international norms such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Court of Cassation deemed the grounds of the appeal inadmissible, confirming that the decisions of the Court of merit were well-reasoned and consistent with the best interest of the minor.
The Court highlighted the importance of the principle of dual parenthood but also emphasized that, in cases of shared custody, visitation arrangements must be appropriate to the age and needs of the minor. In this case, the imposed limitations were justified by the young age of the child, who required a stable and safe environment.
The ruling no. 19069 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation reiterates the importance of a balanced approach in separation proceedings, where the well-being of the minor must always take precedence. Decisions regarding custody and visitation rights must be well-justified and consider the specifics of each case, without forgetting the principle of dual parenthood, which should not compromise the emotional and psychological stability of the child. The Court thus confirmed that the measures adopted by the Court of Appeal were consistent and justified, leaving room for future adjustments as the minor grows.