The end of cohabitation does not reduce the protections due to children. If you live in Milan and have had a child with an unmarried partner, separation can raise immediate questions: where the minor will live, how time with each parent will be organized, how maintenance is calculated, and who will remain in the home where the family lived. The doubt may also arise as to whether a private agreement is sufficient or if it is appropriate to apply to the court.

I want to help you separate the issues concerning children from those concerning adults. We will examine together why joint custody is not equivalent to an identical division of days, which elements affect the financial contribution, and in which cases a written understanding can be presented with a joint application. The starting point always remains the concrete stability of the child's life.

The same rules protect the children of unmarried parents

The civil status of parents does not change the rights of the child. Article 337-bis of the Civil Code extends the discipline on custody and maintenance also to proceedings relating to children born out of wedlock. It is therefore not necessary for the parents to have contracted marriage or formalized a de facto cohabitation in order for them to organize responsibilities, presence times, and financial contributions for the benefit of the minor. The regulatory reference is in the Civil Code, articles 337-bis and following.

Parental responsibility remains with both. Decisions of major interest for the child, such as those regarding education, upbringing, health, and habitual residence, normally require consultation between the parents. This framework must be distinguished from daily organization: the minor may live predominantly with one of them, have regular times with the other, and still maintain both parents in important choices.

The filiation relationship must be legally established. When both parents have recognized the child, or filiation is already established by law or by judicial measure, the central issue becomes the regulation of family life after separation. If instead recognition or paternity is contested, that problem comes before custody and maintenance.

Joint custody and periods of stay

Joint custody is the primary criterion to consider. Article 337-ter of the Civil Code requires the judge to evaluate as a priority that the child remains entrusted to both parents. This means that each retains an effective role in the minor's upbringing; it does not mean, however, that time must be divided exactly in half or that the two homes must have the same function in the child's routine.

The schedule must be sustainable for the minor. Age, school, distance between homes, work schedules, activities, siblings, and coordination capacity affect days and overnight stays. Frequent alternation can work if movements are simple and the child retains their own rhythms. If instead continuous transitions make it more difficult to follow school, sleep, or therapies, a prevalent stay with one parent can offer greater continuity without excluding the other.

When custody can be exclusive

Exclusive custody requires a reason linked to the child's best interest. It does not derive automatically from conflict between parents, income difference, or the fact that one has followed daily life more closely before separation. Article 337-quater allows this solution when joint custody is contrary to the minor's best interest. Even then, within limits compatible with their protection, the duties and relationships of the other parent remain.

Parents' agreements count, but are not untouchable. The judge may take them into account if they are consistent with the child's best interest. For this reason, formulas such as "the child will freely see the other parent" are often insufficient when dialogue is fragile: they do not indicate days, responsibilities in transitions, rules for holidays, or criteria for managing an unforeseen change.

How child maintenance is determined

Maintenance depends on the child's needs and the resources of both. Article 337-ter requires considering the minor's current needs, the standard of living enjoyed during cohabitation, the time spent with each parent, the economic resources of both, and the economic value of care and domestic activities. There is therefore no fixed percentage applicable to all separations. The discipline can be consulted in the current text of the Civil Code.

Days spent with the child do not solve the calculation alone. One parent can directly support meals, transport, and activities during their periods of stay; the other can face most of the ongoing costs of housing, school, and daily organization. To understand if a periodic allowance is needed, one must look at the totality of expenses and care, not limit oneself to counting overnight stays.

Monthly allowance and direct maintenance can coexist. The periodic allowance serves to contribute to the needs that weigh mostly on the household where the child predominantly lives. Direct maintenance instead consists of the payment of costs or activities by each parent. A balanced agreement can provide for both methods, as long as it clarifies which expenses are already covered by the allowance and which remain to be divided.

Further expenses must be defined with care. Not every unforeseen cost is automatically extraordinary. It is useful to indicate which disbursements require prior agreement, such as non-ordinary therapy or a particularly burdensome activity, and which urgent expenses can be dealt with immediately in the child's interest. Establishing a criterion for communications and reimbursement reduces the risk that every daily choice becomes a reason for conflict.

Care work has economic relevance. Accompanying the child, managing homework, medical visits, school meetings, and unexpected events is not a detail unrelated to maintenance. The law requires considering its value together with income and asset resources. It is not compensation recognized to a parent, but an element to proportionately distribute the overall cost of upbringing.

Family home: use of the property and ownership are different

The home can be assigned to protect the child's life continuity. Article 337-sexies of the Civil Code establishes that the enjoyment of the family home must be attributed taking primarily into account the interest of the children. The decision therefore concerns the dwelling as a place where the minor has built school, relationships, and habits, not an instrument to rebalance the economic conditions of the ex-cohabitant.

The assignment of use does not transfer ownership. If the property belongs to a single parent, that parent remains the owner even when the use of the home is regulated differently. If the house is rented, the lease contract and the position of the tenant also assume relevance. Housing, stay schedule, and maintenance must be read together, because they all affect the expenses necessary for the child.

There is no automatic assignment to the cohabiting parent. The fact that the child lives mostly with one of the parents is important, but the decisive factor remains their concrete interest. If the minor alternates in a balanced way between two adequate dwellings, or if the house no longer represents their center of life, the reasons for assigning its use may change. In the absence of cohabiting children, ownership, lease, commodatum, and any property pacts between adults prevail instead.

Written agreement and joint application to the court

An agreement is useful if it translates daily life into clear rules. It can regulate the child's residence, times with each parent, holidays, communications, monthly contribution, expense breakdown, and use of the home. An effective text does not postpone every issue to a future understanding: it indicates what happens if a parent cannot respect a scheduled day, how time is recovered, and which decisions require prior agreement.

A private agreement alone does not offer the guarantees of a judicial measure. If the parents share the conditions, they can present a joint application for the regulation of the exercise of parental responsibility and economic relations. Article 473-bis.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires, among other things, the indication of the income and asset availability of the last three years, the parties' burdens, and the conditions concerning the offspring. The rule is reported in Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022.

The judge checks the best interest of the children. In the joint proceeding, the court ratifies or takes note of the agreements reached. If the proposed conditions conflict with the children's interests, it indicates the modifications to be adopted; in the absence of a suitable solution, it dismisses the application as it stands. Ratification is therefore not a formality that makes any understanding acceptable, but a control over its adequacy.

Milan has jurisdiction only when the law links the case to its court. For the joint application, Article 473-bis.51 identifies the court of the place of residence or domicile of one of the parties. In proceedings that require measures relating to a minor, the general rule instead links jurisdiction to the child's habitual residence. The Court of Milan publishes the section dedicated to family applications of the Cartabia procedure, including the template for the joint application relating to children of parents not bound by marriage.

Modifying conditions when the child's life changes

Custody and maintenance can be revised if circumstances change. A stable relocation, new work schedules, health or school needs, a relevant change in care times or economic resources can make the initial arrangement inadequate. Article 337-quinquies allows requesting the revision of provisions concerning children and financial contributions.

It is not prudent to unilaterally modify payments or the schedule. A temporary economic difficulty does not necessarily coincide with a stable reduction of resources; similarly, a verbal agreement on a change of days may not resolve the consequences on school, expenses, and home. It is necessary to identify the new fact, understand which condition affects the child, and update the understanding consistently.

Child maintenance remains distinct from any relations between ex-cohabitants. Law no. 76 of 2016 provides, in the presence of a state of need and impossibility of providing for one's own maintenance, alimony in favor of the ex-cohabitant for a period proportional to the duration of cohabitation. This is a different protection from the contribution for children, which depends on their needs and the duty of both parents to contribute. The reference is in Law no. 76 of 2016 on de facto cohabitations.

Frequently Asked questions

If we are not married, can I request joint custody?

Yes, the rules also apply to children of unmarried parents. The judge evaluates custody to both as a priority and establishes presence times, organizational methods, and major-interest decisions. Joint custody does not automatically ensure an identical division of days: the calendar must respond to the concrete needs of the child.

Is maintenance calculated solely on the basis of salary?

No, income is essential but it is not the only criterion. The child's current needs, previous standard of living, stay periods, available resources, and the value of care activity also matter. For this reason, two parents with similar incomes can have different contributions if the distribution of expenses and care is not the same.

Does the parent with whom the child lives always obtain the family home?

No, the child's best interest counts above all. Prevalent cohabitation with a parent can be an important element, but the assignment does not serve to solve the adult's economic needs alone. Furthermore, the measure on the use of the dwelling does not transfer the right of ownership of the property.

Can we submit an agreement to the court without a contentious case?

Yes, if you have reached shared conditions, you can propose a joint application. The application must indicate the arrangement for the child and the economic information required by law. The judge checks that the understanding is not contrary to the minor's interest and may ask for clarifications or modifications before ratifying it or taking note of it.

Can I reduce the allowance if my income decreases?

A relevant reduction can justify a revision, but not a unilateral choice. A temporary difficulty must be distinguished from a stable change in resources, and the child's current needs must also be considered. An updated agreement or a modification measure prevents economic conflict from affecting their daily life.

Useful references and guidance

The central references are Articles 337-bis, 337-ter, 337-quater, 337-quinquies, and 337-sexies of the Civil Code. For the joint application, Articles 473-bis.47 and 473-bis.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure assume relevance. If you need to clarify which conditions are most suitable for your child's life, you can contact me.