Joint Custody and International Relocation: Commentary on Judgment Cass. civ., Ord. no. 26697/2023

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 26697 of 2023 offers important insights into child custody dynamics, especially when one parent decides to relocate abroad. In this case, the Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of Trieste, which had authorized the relocation of the minor C.C. to Israel with her mother, B.B., emphasizing the importance of safeguarding her primary interest.

Context of the Judgment

The case concerned a dispute between A.A. and B.B. regarding the custody of their daughter C.C., born in 2014. The Court of Appeal had deemed the mother to be the primary caregiver and considered the relocation to Israel justified by legitimate reasons, such as seeking family support and employment opportunities. This aspect was central to the judgment, as the minor's well-being was consistently prioritized.

The Court ruled out that the mother's decision to relocate to Israel was an expression of disinterest in her daughter's needs.

The Principle of the Child's Best Interest

The principle of the child's best interest, enshrined in Article 337-ter of the Civil Code, guided the Court in its decision. The assessment of parental suitability took into account not only the mother's caregiving and support capabilities but also the necessity of maintaining a stable and continuous bond with both parents. Despite the objections raised by the father, the Court found that the relocation would not compromise this relationship.

• The mother demonstrated having solid family support in Israel.
• The child had always lived with her mother, who was the primary reference figure.
• No elements emerged indicating obstacles to paternal visitation.

Conclusions on the Judgment

In conclusion, judgment no. 26697/2023 of the Court of Cassation represents a clear application of legal principles concerning child custody. It highlights how the international relocation of one parent should not automatically compromise the rights of the other parent, provided that emotional bonds and the minor's interest are safeguarded. The Court successfully balanced the needs of both parents, confirming that, although relocation may create difficulties, there were no sufficient grounds to deny the possibility of joint custody.

Conclusions

In light of the foregoing, it is crucial for parents to always consider the child's best interest in their decisions, especially in situations of conflict. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, but the well-being of children must remain at the center of every assessment.