Forest family: the time factor at play on parental authority
The suspension becomes definitive if the family does not take the necessary measures within the set time limit
by Carlo Rimini*
Key points
In the aftermath of the Court of Appeal's confirmation of the court order in the case of the "family of the woods", a few considerations can be made, in order to find in the rules and their jurisprudential application a compass between the opposing factions. Two questions confront each other in the debate. Can the state take children away from parents who, albeit in their own way, devoted every attention to their children? Can parents, albeit with the best of intentions, force their children to live in an unhealthy place, forcing them into unacceptable deprivation?
What the Law Says
Let's start with the rules. Article 330 of the Civil Code provides that the court may declare the forfeiture of parental responsibility when the parent performs acts that cause a 'serious prejudice' to the child. The provision specifies that "for serious reasons" the removal of the child from the family home may be ordered. Article 333 provides for a less heavy-handed instrument, allowing the judge, in the face of conduct that does not justify the loss of parental responsibility, but is nevertheless such as to cause harm to the child, to take measures to protect the child, including removal from the family home.
The rules do not provide for the possibility of pronouncing a 'suspension' of parental responsibility, which is instead the measure taken by the court in the case of the bosco family. The court, however, has, for the time being, only pronounced a provisional measure and thus, by provisionally pronouncing the total cancellation of parental responsibility, has suspended it. The measure, however, departs from the logic of the code, according to which the court provisionally adopts the less serious measures provided for in Article 333 and, only when these measures prove insufficient, adopts the final measure of removal from parental responsibility.
Are there, in the case of the 'woodland family', grounds for suspension or forfeiture of parental responsibility and removal from the parental home? Measures of this kind are quite usual in the experience of our courts, without causing any uproar or political instrumentalisation. It frequently happens that judges have to place children in a foster home due to the unsuitability of their parents, it happens that they have to declare them adoptable. It happens, for example, when children who are forced to live in a shack camp on the outskirts of a big city without being sent to school are taken away from their parents. It happens, and nobody rails against the judges protecting the parents.
The Court of Cassation, however, has placed precise limits on the judge's power to declare the forfeiture of parental responsibility, limits reiterated in an order filed just a few days ago (32328/2025). The total cancellation of parental responsibility 'constitutes the extrema ratio. It is in fact a measure that can be adopted if the parent's conduct results in a serious prejudice for the child and only where the other measures regulated by the legislature are not in any case suitable to protect the child's overriding interest in growing up in the family context of origin. Moreover, the judge 'must express a prognosis on the actual and current possibility of recovery, through a path of growth and development of parenting skills and competences'.
