A child's psychotherapy can become a point of strong disagreement after separation: one parent considers starting a path necessary, the other fears it is premature, disagrees with the chosen professional, or wants more information first. This is not a choice to be resolved by looking solely at who lives with the minor for the most time. When the path has a therapeutic purpose, the child's health, the responsibility of both parents, and their capacity to understand what concerns them come into play.
In this guide, I want to clarify what consent requires, what weight the minor's will holds, when disagreement can be brought before a judge, and why it is important to separate the need for care from conflict between adults. We will also examine which facts truly change the answer: the content of existing measures, the child's age and maturity, clinical urgency, and the concrete reasons for a yes or no.
Psychological therapy is an important decision for the child's health
Separation does not eliminate shared responsibility. Article 337-ter of the civil code establishes that both parents exercise parental responsibility and that decisions of major interest, including those relating to health, are taken by mutual agreement. The choice to start psychotherapy, continue it, or modify it therefore requires particular attention: it does not coincide with normal daily organization, such as accompanying the child to a previously agreed-upon activity.
The point is not to attribute an automatic effect to the word “therapy”, but to understand what affects the minor's psychophysical well-being. An occasional orientation meeting, a school interview, and a structured psychotherapeutic path can have different functions. The more the choice involves clinical taking-in-charge, continuity over time, or decisions about care, the more reasonable it is to trace it back to the health decisions that parents must face together.
The rule applies even if the child is primarily placed with one parent. Placement indicates where the minor predominantly lives and how staying times are organized; it does not transform the custodial parent alone into the sole holder of important healthcare decisions. The regulatory reference is Article 337-ter of the civil code, applicable to children of separated, divorced, or unmarried parents.
What informed consent means in the minor's path
Consent is not just about a signature. For a healthcare treatment, the minor must receive explanations appropriate to their capacity to understand: they must be able to know, in an understandable way, why a path is proposed, what objectives it has, and how it takes place. Law no. 219 of 2017 expressly recognizes the right of the minor person to valorize their capacities for understanding and decision.
Consent for the minor's treatment is expressed or refused by those exercising parental responsibility or by the guardian, but the law requires taking the child's will into account in relation to age and maturity. The child is not a mere object of the parents' decision. This does not mean they can always decide alone, nor that a refusal or desire automatically closes the issue: their position must nevertheless be known and considered with seriousness, from the perspective of their psychophysical health.
In concrete terms, before discussing consent, it is useful to distinguish the levels of choice. A parent can ask for general information on the proposal; both can agree on a first comparison with the professional; they can then decide whether to start a path. Clarifying objectives, predictable duration, meeting modalities, and communications to parents prevents disagreement from arising from incomplete information. The discipline of the minor's consent is contained in Article 3 of Law no. 219 of 2017.
The child's will counts, but must be protected from conflict
Listening to a minor does not mean asking them to choose between mother and father. An adolescent can clearly express the desire to speak with a psychologist or may experience the path with discomfort; a younger child may manifest signs and needs differently. In both cases, adults must avoid turning that position into evidence against the other parent.
The law connects important decisions with children’s abilities, inclinations and aspirations. In proceedings concerning them, the judge hears children aged twelve or over, and younger children capable of discernment. Their views are considered in light of their age and maturity, without making them responsible for the decision. The judge may omit the hearing by a reasoned order if it conflicts with the child’s interests, is manifestly unnecessary, is physically or psychologically impossible, or the child does not wish to be heard. In proceedings approving a parental agreement on custody, a hearing takes place only when necessary, under Article 473-bis.4 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.
This criterion also helps outside the courtroom. If the child asks for psychological help, it is useful to understand what they are communicating without immediately promising an outcome that also depends on consent and clinical evaluation. If instead they refuse a path proposed by a parent, the refusal should not be dismissed as a caprice nor used to block every confrontation. The child's reasons, degree of maturity, and the meaning the professional attributes to the situation matter.
If parents disagree, the decision does not belong to whoever acts first
A real disagreement is not overcome by unilaterally imposing therapy. Article 337-ter of the civil code provides that, in important health decisions, the contrast is referred to the judge. The judge does not decide which parent is more convincing in the abstract: they identify the solution most consistent with the child's concrete interest, in light of available information.
For this reason, it is important that the contrast be specific. Simply saying "I do not agree" does not clarify whether the problem concerns the necessity of the path, the chosen professional, the frequency, the type of intervention, the cost, the communication modalities, or a well-founded fear regarding the effects of therapy. A precise reason allows for seeking a precise solution. For example, parents can share the need for support but together choose a different professional, an initial interview, or a reassessment after an agreed period.
An exclusive custody order does not automatically authorize a parent to decide every healthcare issue alone. Unless otherwise disposed by the judge, even in such an arrangement, decisions of major interest remain shared. One must read the operative part of the already issued measure, not stop at the custody label. The judge may have attributed specific powers, imposed preventive consultations, or regulated a particular situation differently.
There is also a distinct hypothesis: if those representing the minor refuse proposed treatments and the doctor considers them appropriate and necessary, Article 3 of Law no. 219 of 2017 refers the decision to the guardianship judge upon application by the subjects indicated by the norm. This provision should not be confused with every normal conflict between separated parents. When the core issue is the shared exercise of parental responsibility, the reference remains the decision of the family judge provided by Article 337-ter.
Recourse to the judge: when it is needed and what can be decided
Recourse is a way to resolve a blocked choice, not a tool to punish disagreement. If agreement is not possible and delay risks harming the child or prolonging a situation of suffering, one of the parents can ask the judge for a measure on the issue. If a family proceeding is already pending, the request must be coordinated with that judgment; if it is not, territorial jurisdiction generally follows the minor's habitual residence.
The application must clearly explain what decision is requested and which facts support it. Clinical proposals, information received from parents, any previous paths, communication between the parties, and the content of existing measures or agreements may be relevant. There is no need to build a trial on the child's private life: elements useful to understand whether the proposed path truly responds to their interest are needed.
The procedural discipline applicable today to family proceedings provides that the judge hears the parties, may gather information, and adopts temporary and urgent measures when necessary in the interest of the children. In the presence of imminent and irreparable prejudice, the judge can intervene even before calling the parties; however, not every contrast over therapy presents these characteristics. Urgency must be linked to concrete clinical and family facts, not to conflictuality alone. The rules are contained in Articles 473-bis.11, 473-bis.12, 473-bis.15, and 473-bis.22 of the civil procedure code, introduced by the family process reform.
If a parent seriously violates a previously adopted measure, hinders the exercise of parental responsibility, or causes prejudice to the minor, the judge can modify existing provisions and adopt further measures. Not every divergence determines a sanction. The consequence depends on the severity of the conduct, the damage or risk to the child, and the content of the disregarded order. The text of the procedural articles can be consulted in Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022.
Agreement, choice of professional, and communications during the path
The best agreement is not the one that forces the child to recount the sessions. A therapeutic path requires a space of trust and does not coincide with a relationship destined to report every word said by the minor to each parent. Before starting, it is useful to clearly agree on what general information the professional may share: objectives, regularity of meetings, any need for comparison with parents, and important indications for the boy or girl's protection.
The choice of professional can be the real point of contrast. The opposing parent must not be excluded from the choice without a concrete reason. If there are no specific impediments, it may be useful to gather a comprehensible clinical proposal, evaluate a preliminary meeting together, or identify a different professional. It is not necessary for parents to have an identical reading of family problems; it is necessary that the decision does not use psychotherapy to obtain confirmations against the other.
Expenses must also be addressed separately from the clinical decision. A separation agreement, a sentence, or a measure can regulate medical and psychological expenses, reimbursements, and authorization modalities. The fact that an expense is incurred for the child does not alone resolve the problem of distribution. Before advancing costs or asking for reimbursements, one must verify the rule already applicable to the family and any agreement reached on the path.
What steps to consider before turning to the judge
Before resorting to court, try to make the choice understandable and delimited. Written, respectful, and concrete communication can indicate the reason for the proposal, the professional's name, the type of meeting suggested, and available information. Its purpose is not to create evidence of hostility, but to allow the other parent to express informed consent or reasoned dissent.
If the contrast concerns missing information, an initial interview with the professional can clarify decisive aspects. If it concerns the risk of putting the child in the middle, the confrontation must remain between adults. The minor must not deliver messages, choose the parent to follow, or witness discussions about therapy. This applies even when the child is old enough to strongly express their own opinion.
For an initial examination, the separation, divorce, or parenting regulation measure, subsequent agreements, and communications showing the proposal and reasons for dissent are normally useful. The central question remains simple: which decision now protects the child's health and serenity without making them the ground of conflict between parents?
Frequently asked questions
Can I start my child's psychotherapy alone?
Generally speaking, no if the other parent exercises parental responsibility and there is no agreement. A therapeutic path normally concerns the minor's health and falls among the important decisions to be taken together. An immediate clinical need may require prompt initiatives, but does not automatically eliminate the duty to inform and involve the other parent in subsequent decisions.
Is the adolescent child's consent enough to begin?
No, but their will must be taken into serious consideration. The law requires that the minor be informed in a way appropriate to their maturity and that their position be evaluated by the parents. Treatment consent remains expressed by those exercising parental responsibility, barring particular situations provided by law.
Can the custodial parent choose the psychologist without the other?
Placement does not in itself attribute exclusive power over important health choices. One must verify whether the judge's measure provided different rules for the concrete case. If the decision is shared and agreement is missing, the choice should not be resolved by excluding the other parent.
If the other parent refuses without explanation, can I resort to the judge?
Yes, disagreement over an important decision for the child's health can be submitted to the judge. The application must indicate the proposed path, the reasons making it useful, and the content of the disagreement. The judge evaluates the minor's concrete interest, not merely the fact that a parent said no.
Will the judge listen to my child?
As a rule, yes, if your child is at least twelve or, if younger, capable of discernment. The judge may omit the hearing in the circumstances specified by law, giving reasons: a conflict with the child’s interests, manifest lack of necessity, physical or psychological impossibility, or the child’s wish not to be heard. Where proceedings approve a parental agreement on custody, the child is heard only when necessary.
Essential references
The main references are Article 337-ter of the civil code, Article 3 of Law no. 219 of 2017, and the civil procedure code norms on family proceedings. The institutional sources linked in the previous paragraphs allow reading the recalled normative texts directly.
If disagreement remains open or an existing measure does not clarify who should decide, you can contact me to frame the situation without losing sight of your child's concrete need.