The Decision of the Rome Court (9 October 2025):
Children Remain in the Family Home, Parents Alternate
A lively debate has recently arisen following a decision issued by the Court of Rome on 9 October 2025, which ordered that the minor children remain in the former family home while the parents alternate living there on a scheduled basis.This type of ruling is not entirely new, as other courts, both in the past and more recently, have adopted similar solutions.
The Civitavecchia Precedent (16 June 2025) and its Legal Basis
Among these is the decision of the Court of Civitavecchia, which, in an order issued under Article 473-bis.22 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure on 16 June 2025, ordered the equal placement of two minor children, aged 8 and 11, in the family home, with the parents alternating their stay each week.
This ruling is based, on the one hand, on the need to ensure that the children remain in a familiar environment and, on the other, on the principle of fully safeguarding co-parenting.
In the same decision, the Court of Civitavecchia also addressed a dispute between the parents concerning where the children should live, stating that conflicts regarding a child’s place of residence must be resolved, preventively rather than subsequently, by judicial authority.
In particular, the Court held that although a parent’s right to move residence with their child is of constitutional relevance, it must be balanced with the child’s equally protected right to healthy development, emotional stability, and maintaining balanced and meaningful relationships with both parents, even when the family unit has broken down.
Relocation of a Minor: Judicial Criteria
The Court emphasised that several factors must be considered when deciding on a child’s relocation, including:
1. The reasons for the custodial parent’s intended move, which should not be based solely on improved employment opportunities or a change of social environment.
2. The time and manner of contact between the child and the non-custodial parent, assessed both in the scenario of the child relocating and of the parent relocating alone.
3. The non-custodial parent’s willingness to relocate.
4. The preservation of the child’s relationships with important figures in their life, such as relatives and friends.
5. The psychological impact of the move on the child, in light of the child’s need for environmental, emotional, and relational stability.
6. The characteristics of the new home environment, compared with the environment the child would be leaving.
7. The child’s age, since older children are generally better able to maintain relationships despite distance.
8. The child’s own wishes regarding relocation.
Rome Court of Appeal (30 October 2025): Decision Upheld
The Court of Appeal of Rome fully upheld the Civitavecchia decision in an order dated 30 October 2025.
The Court rejected the mother’s appeal, finding no valid grounds to amend the lower court’s ruling on the children’s placement or the regulation of parent-child contact.
Regarding the decision-making criteria, the Court of Appeal further stated that the relocation of the mother-child unit cannot be ordered solely because it corresponds to the child’s expressed wishes during the hearing. Instead, all relevant criteria must be balanced to determine the solution that best protects and serves the child’s interests.
Read more about child relocation and child abduction in Italy
Read more about author Alessandro Gravente