When, after a separation, the other parent delays visits, fails to answer calls, or makes any contact with your child difficult, the issue is not merely about respecting a calendar. What is at stake is the continuity of your child's relationship with both parents. Understanding whether this is an isolated incident, an organizational difficulty, or a repeated obstacle changes how you should approach the situation.
I want to help you distinguish what can be handled through clear communication from what requires judicial intervention. We will look at which facts truly matter, what remedies exist in civil proceedings, and why protecting the relationship does not mean forcing a child into a meeting they experience with distress or fear.
The Relationship with Both Parents Is Above All a Right of Your Child
The starting rule concerns your child. Article 337-ter of the Civil Code recognizes the minor child's right to maintain a balanced and continuous relationship with each parent, as well as to receive care, education, upbringing, and moral assistance from both. The judge always decides by looking at the moral and material interest of the minor, not at an abstract idea of equality between adults. The text of the provision is reported in Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022 on Normattiva.
Joint custody does not impose identical timeframes. There may be a parent with whom the child predominantly lives and, at the same time, a broad and stable schedule with the other. What matters is that the set times are concretely practicable and that neither parent hollows out the other's relationship through arbitrary postponements, withheld information, or unilateral decisions.
Visits, Phone Calls, and Information Do Not Have the Same Content
Every conduct must be read in relation to the already established rule. If a court order or ratified agreement indicates days, times, overnight stays, and handover procedures, non-compliance is easier to identify. Phone calls, video calls, and updates on daily life carry a different weight: if they are explicitly regulated, they must be respected; if they are not, a consistent behavior that prevents any contact may still show a difficulty in the shared exercise of parental responsibility.
When the Other Parent's Behavior Becomes a Significant Obstacle
A single unforeseen event does not equal excluding conduct. A child's flu, an exceptional school commitment, or a truly unavoidable delay may require rescheduling a meeting. However, what becomes relevant is how the parent handles the issue: do they give timely notice, propose a concrete make-up time, and enable the child to maintain contact, or do they use the unforeseen event to systematically cancel the relationship?
Repetition and the absence of a verifiable reason make the difference. Postponing every weekend without make-up time, ignoring call requests, scheduling activities incompatible with visits, or speaking about the other parent to the child in a way that induces rejection are facts that can hinder the proper performance of custody. However, applying a label to the behavior is not enough: dates, the content of communications, existing provisions, and actual consequences for the minor are needed.
The safety of the minor remains an essential limit. If the other parent claims a concrete danger to your child's health or safety, it is not correct to automatically presume an obstructive intent. It is necessary to distinguish a documentable concern from a generic accusation used to suspend contact. In the presence of an actual risk, the correct path is to quickly ask the judge for appropriate measures, rather than turning a doubt into an indefinite suspension decided by only one parent.
The Remedy That Replaced Article 709-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure
The reference to Article 709-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure belongs to the previous rules. In proceedings started after 28 February 2023, breaches and violations affecting custody are governed by Article 473-bis.39 of the Code of Civil Procedure; for earlier proceedings, the transitional rules must be checked. The corrective measure to the civil process reform reports this norm together with the rules on the implementation of family decisions in Legislative Decree no. 164 of 2024 on Normattiva.
The judge intervenes in the presence of serious breaches or prejudicial acts. The provision also concerns conducts that hinder the proper performance of custody arrangements and the exercise of parental responsibility. If the proceeding is already pending, the judge may modify the existing provisions even ex officio and may adopt multiple measures together: reprimand the defaulting parent, set a sum owed for future violations or delays, or apply an administrative sanction.
The sanction is not an automatic compensation for the other parent. Article 473-bis.39 provides for a sanction ranging from 75 to 5,000 euros in favor of the Cassa delle Ammende. Separately, the judge may order compensation for damages in favor of the other parent and, even ex officio, of the minor. These are different decisions that require significant conduct and a concrete assessment of its consequences; they do not follow automatically from every disagreement or missed visit.
Enforcing the Schedule or Requesting a Modification: Two Different Objectives
Enforcement serves to make an already existing decision effective. Article 473-bis.38 of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates the enforcement of custody decisions and disputes over the exercise of parental responsibility. If a lawsuit on these aspects is already pending, the judge of that proceeding has jurisdiction; if not, jurisdiction may lie with the judge who issued the decision to be enforced, with the specific rules provided in case of relocation of the minor. The same regulatory source specifies that the judge hears the parties, attempts conciliation, and, if this fails, establishes the enforcement modalities in the best interest of the minor.
Modification, on the other hand, is necessary when the existing rule is no longer adequate. A schedule may require an update because school, distance between homes, health conditions, work shifts, or the child's needs change in a stable manner. However, simply refusing to apply a still practicable agreement is not a modification. If the problem is an obstacle to already regulated visits, asking only for new conditions may leave the violation unresolved; if the schedule is truly outdated, demanding rigid execution may fail to protect your child.
Public force is not an ordinary response to family conflict. Article 473-bis.38 allows the judge to authorize it only when it is absolutely indispensable, through a reasoned decision and keeping the psychophysical health of the minor as a priority. This limit clarifies an important point: protecting the relationship with a parent does not mean dragging the child into a conflict. Instead, the intervention must remove the obstacle without aggravating their distress.
If Your Child Refuses to Meet You, the Refusal Must Be Understood Before Being Interpreted
A child's refusal does not prove by itself the responsibility of the other parent. It may depend on age, a phase of high tension, a loyalty conflict, meeting arrangements that the child experiences poorly, or facts that require immediate attention. The point is not to decide who is right based on a phrase reported by the minor, but to understand what cause is hindering the relationship and what measure can protect them.
Nor does refusal allow a parent to remain passive. The parent with whom the child lives must encourage, as far as possible and in compliance with their well-being, the maintenance of the relationship with the other. If devaluation, isolation, or pressure on the minor is found, this conduct may become relevant. If instead concrete reasons of distress or danger emerge, the response is not to punish the child or ignore them, but to bring those facts before the judge so that the relationship can be regulated safely.
Words like "alienation" do not replace facts. In a proceeding, observable behaviors matter: impeded visits, denied communications, decisions made without discussion, documentable phrases or pressures, the child's reactions, and the reasons explaining them. Using a generic definition risks shifting attention away from the concrete need of the minor and the provision that can be useful to them.
How to Address the Problem Without Escalating Conflict
Precise communication can prevent every delay from becoming a new lawsuit. It is useful to propose in writing a make-up time with a determined day and hour, ask for essential information about the child, and keep messages centered on school, health, activities, and visits. Accusations, threats, or messages entrusted to the child expose them to a choice they should not have to bear. A written agreement between parents is useful only if it is clear and does not conflict with the already effective decision.
Documentation must reconstruct a sequence, not an emotional version of the conflict. Useful items include the decision or agreement regulating visits, original messages and emails, a calendar of missed occasions with make-up proposals, and documents explaining any real impediments. Indiscriminate collections of private conversations are not needed: it is necessary to show what was planned, what happened, and what reasonable alternative was offered.
Before choosing the remedy, the necessary outcome must be defined. If you desire the execution of a clear schedule, enforcement is the key node; if you ask for consequences for serious violations, Article 473-bis.39 becomes relevant; if the conditions are now incompatible with your child's life, a modification must be considered. For a first useful consultation, bring the current decision, the essential dates of the obstacles, and the communications showing concrete attempts to maintain the relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I request a modification if the other parent hinders visits?
Yes, but modification is not always the first remedy. If the schedule remains suitable for your child and the problem is non-compliance, it may be more pertinent to request enforcement and, in serious cases, the measures of Article 473-bis.39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Modification becomes central when stable facts make the existing conditions no longer practicable or no longer responsive to their interest.
Can hindered phone calls be relevant even if they are not provided for in the decision?
They can be if the obstacle is constant and deprives the child of any meaningful contact. However, the absence of a written detail does not allow unilaterally imposing unreasonable times or frequencies. It is necessary to look at the child's age, distance, daily commitments, and the overall behavior of both parents.
Is the sanction from 75 to 5,000 euros given to the other parent?
No, the administrative sanction goes to the Cassa delle Ammende. Article 473-bis.39 of the Code of Civil Procedure distinguishes this measure from possible compensation for damages, which the judge may award to the other parent or the minor when the prerequisites are met. These are therefore not two different names for the same payment.
Can I stop accompanying my child if they do not want to meet the other parent?
It is not prudent to turn the refusal into a suspension decided by a single parent. The reasons for the distress must be considered seriously, especially if they indicate a concrete danger. However, if an effective decision exists, it is necessary to take action to ask the judge for instructions or modifications, without placing the weight of the decision on the child.
Do I need an already open lawsuit to request measures against violations?
No, Article 473-bis.39 also covers the hypothesis where no proceeding is pending. In that case, the request is filed in the forms of the application provided by Article 473-bis.12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If a lawsuit already exists, the issue can be brought before the judge handling it, with a choice consistent with the requested objective.