Non-cohabiting father excluded from the home even if the child is of age
The ex-husband's logistical or economic situation is irrelevant
2' min read
2' min read
No to the assignment ofone floor of the marital home to the ex-husband, co-owner, even if the daughter remaining in the home is of age. The Cassazione (judgment 12249) upheld the appeal of an ex-wife - who had remarried while remaining in the property - against the decision of the Court of Appeal to meet the economic and housing needs of the ex, by assigning him a floor.
A solution that, to the judges of merit, had appeared fair. The father's problems were solved, without prejudice for the girl, who could still enjoy ample space, since the two brothers had left, having achieved economic independence. But the Supreme Court cancelled the verdict and, ruling on the merits, revoked the allocation.
Habitat Conservation
.The judges of legitimacy admit 'that in particular cases and under certain conditions, as the Attorney General himself points out, a partial assignment may be ordered, identifying as a domestic habitat only a portion (or a unit) of a larger property that exceeds in size the needs of the family'.
A viable route in cases where the degree of conflict is slight and the allocation of a portion concretely facilitates the sharing of parenting and the preservation of the domestic habitat of children.
Limits to the power of the divorce and separation judge
.However, for the Court, specifically, this is not the right path. And in any case, taking it is not up to the separation or divorce judge, whose 'beacon' must be only the best interests of the offspring, without digressions on the economic situation or logistical problems. No order for the assignment of portions of the family home," reads the judgment, "or of other real estate units that do not constitute the children's habitation, can be made in favour of the parent not cohabiting with the offspring, any assessment relating to the weighing of the parents' interests of a purely economic or housing nature being extraneous in this case. An orientation not followed by the Court of Appeal: "In this case, on the contrary, the court of merit - the Court of Cassation points out - intervened by assigning a part of the property (the first floor) to the parent not cohabiting with the offspring in consideration of his or her housing needs, reducing, without any reason connected to the direct interest of the daughter, the latter's domestic habitat".

