If you are prevented from seeing your grandchild, your first doubt is understandable: is the bond with grandparents protected by law or does it depend solely on the parents' decision? I want to clarify what Article 317-bis of the Civil Code recognizes, when an estrangement can be brought before a judge and why simply invoking one's family role is not enough to obtain mandated visits.

The central question is not whether the adults are right in their conflict, but what is truly in the child's best interests. We will examine together what facts make a relationship meaningful, what weight a child's wishes may carry, how the court application works, and why intrafamily foster care is a measure distinct from simply regulating visits.

The relationship with grandparents is protected, but it is not a right to impose visits

Article 317-bis of the Civil Code recognizes the right of ascendants, and therefore also grandparents, to maintain meaningful relations with their minor grandchildren. If the relationship is prevented, the ascendant may apply to the court of the place where the minor has their habitual residence, requesting the most appropriate measures in the child's exclusive interest. The starting point is the text of Article 317-bis of the Civil Code introduced by Legislative Decree No. 154 of 2013.

This rule, however, does not turn a grandfather or grandmother into someone who can autonomously decide days, times, holidays or educational choices. Parental responsibility remains with the parents, barring different measures adopted in the child's interest. The court application serves to protect a relationship useful to the minor, not to resolve resentment between adults nor to obtain symbolic recognition of one's role.

A meaningful relationship does not necessarily mean daily presence. Regular frequentation, concrete help in upbringing, a stable affectionate relationship or a bond that the minor recognizes as important can all count. How grandparents place themselves in the grandchild's life also matters: respecting the parents' educational boundaries and not involving the minor in family accusations makes the positive function of the relationship clearer.

The child's best interests come before the adults' desires

The judge must not merely verify that visits with grandparents do not cause evident harm. They must ascertain a concrete and current advantage for the minor: a positive, rewarding relationship capable of contributing to their balance. The Court of Cassation has clarified that the absence of prejudice alone is not enough to justify frequentation. The overview by the Court of Cassation on ordinance no. 2881 of 2023 reports this criterion and recalls the need to favor spontaneous, unforced relationships.

In practice, the history of the relationship, the continuity of frequentations, the grandparents' ability to offer a serene presence, and the real reasons for the interruption take on significance. A dispute between a parent and a grandparent does not automatically coincide with a reason to deprive the child of the relationship. Conversely, intense conflict can have a negative impact if the minor is exposed to pressure, derogatory messages or attempts to make them take sides.

The minor's safety is non-negotiable. If violent behavior, intimidating conduct, serious clashes in front of the child, or situations that make the minor anxious and disoriented emerge, the judge must consider these circumstances above all. The protection of family bonds does not entail the obligation to preserve every relationship in the same forms and with the same intensity as before.

A past relationship can count for much, but must be read in the present

An affectionate relationship built over time is an important element because it helps demonstrate that the minor already benefits from the grandparents' presence. However, history does not replace current assessment. If today the family context has changed, the judge also considers the minor's age, their balance, the reasons for the distance, and the possibility that gradual meetings are more suitable than an immediate and indistinct resumption.

Similarly, the absence of a consolidated relationship does not authorize using the proceedings solely to satisfy the adults' aspiration to know the grandchild. It is necessary to understand whether building or resuming the bond can bring an effective benefit to the minor, taking into account their living context and without placing the burden of a family dispute born elsewhere upon them.

The minor's voice carries real weight

Minors who have reached the age of twelve, and even younger ones if capable of discernment, are heard in proceedings where measures concerning them must be adopted. Their opinions must be considered based on age and maturity; hearing them may be excluded only in the hypotheses provided by law and with a statement of reasons. This is provided for by Articles 473-bis.4 and 473-bis.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Listening does not mean asking the child to choose between parents and grandparents, nor attributing the responsibility for the decision to them alone. Their position must be protected and understood. A refusal can stem from real suffering, negative memories, fear of disappointing a parent, or pressure from conflict. For this reason, the reason for the refusal is more important than an isolated answer.

When a grandchild who has reached twelve years of age, or is otherwise capable of discernment, clearly expresses the desire not to see their grandparents, the Court of Cassation excludes that frequentation can be imposed against that will. This does not render the previous bond irrelevant, but requires solutions that respect the spontaneity of the relationship rather than turning it into an obligation. This principle is illustrated in the overview by the Court of Cassation.

A mistake to avoid is asking the minor to convey messages, gather evidence, or take a stand against a parent. The minor must not become the conduit of conflict. Even when the distance appears unjust, protecting their emotional space is consistent with the purpose of the protection provided by Article 317-bis of the Civil Code.

The application to protect the relationship with the grandchild

As of the reference date of this guide, September 17, 2026, the proceedings provided for by Article 317-bis of the Civil Code fall within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. The rule on jurisdiction expressly refers to the final paragraph of Article 317-bis; the territorially competent court is that of the place where the minor has their habitual residence. Article 38 of the implementing provisions of the Civil Code indicates this jurisdiction.

The application is initiated by filing an appeal. The appeal must explain the essential facts: what relationship existed, since when and in what way it was hindered, what reasons are raised by the parents, and what measures are requested in the minor's interest. The procedure regarding persons, minors, and families requires that the application, facts, legal reasons, means of proof, and documents be set out in a clear and specific manner. Articles 473-bis.12 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure govern the form of the application and the proceedings.

The judge may adopt the measures deemed appropriate to the specific case. There is no visitation schedule imposed by law for every family. The modalities are not pre-established: the decision may consider the need for a gradual resumption, the presence of strong conflict, the minor's school habits, and the possibility of protecting the relationship without altering their daily balance.

An order is not unchangeable. When justified grounds arise, the parties may request the revision of measures concerning the minor. This can happen, for example, if the reasons for the interruption change, the minor grows up and expresses different needs, or regulated meetings no longer function usefully. The change must be concrete, not a simple dissatisfaction with the decision adopted. ^[1]

Intrafamily foster care: a protection distinct from grandparents' visits

Intrafamily foster care is not the automatic consequence of being prevented from seeing a grandchild. It has a different protective function: it concerns minors temporarily deprived of a suitable family environment, despite support and assistance interventions, and aims to guarantee them maintenance, education, instruction, and affectionate relationships. This is the prerequisite outlined by Article 2 of Law No. 184 of 1983, in the text recalled by Law No. 149 of 2001.

Grandparents can be important figures when a child needs to be temporarily welcomed outside their usual family organization. However, suitability for welcoming must be ascertained in relation to the minor's needs: stability, daily care, continuity of bonds, and the ability to protect them from conflict. The family relationship alone does not replace these prerequisites.

It is therefore essential not to confuse the two levels. If the minor lives in an adequate environment with a parent and the problem concerns solely the breakdown of contact with grandparents, foster care is not the tool to obtain frequentations. If instead the minor is temporarily deprived of a suitable family context, possible placement with relatives may enter into the protection assessment. The request changes because the need to be protected changes.

In this matter too, the center of the decision remains the minor. Foster care does not grant grandparents a reward for their availability and does not serve to take space away from parents for personal conflict reasons. It serves, if conditions are met, to give the child a temporarily suitable environment and to preserve healthy affectionate relationships as much as possible.

Agreement, court application, and behaviors to avoid

When parents are open to discussion, a clear agreement can be the least burdensome path for the minor. A useful agreement is concrete: it indicates contact compatible with the child's school, rest, and activities, avoids sudden changes, and does not use meetings to discuss adult issues. An agreement has value above all if it is respected with continuity and if it leaves room for needs that change with age.

The court application becomes an option to consider when the interruption is stable, no workable discussion exists, and there are elements to support that restoring the relationship is in the minor's interest. It is not necessary to wait for the relationship to be completely zeroed out, but it is not useful to act merely to react to an offense. The request must remain focused on the bond with the grandchild and the benefit that can derive from that bond.

For guidance, it is useful to reconstruct in an orderly manner the actual frequentations, the changes that have occurred, relevant communications, and any existing measures regarding parental responsibility or the minor's placement. Aggressive messages, requests directed at the child to take a side, and initiatives that violate boundaries set by parents or the judge must be avoided. Documentable facts matter more than generic accusations.

If the situation is blocked and you want to understand whether an agreement or a court application is consistent with protecting the minor, you can contact me. We can focus on the distinction between relational difficulty, protection of relations with ascendants, and, when truly relevant, intrafamily foster care.

Frequently asked questions

Can I ask the judge for a visitation schedule with my grandchild?

You can ask for appropriate measures to protect the relationship, but the law does not guarantee an automatic schedule. The judge assesses whether the bond is meaningful and what modality is useful for the minor. A concrete request must indicate the existing relationship and why regulated meetings, even gradual ones, can foster the child's balance without exposing them to family conflict.

Is being a grandparent enough to obtain the right to see a grandchild?

No, the family bond alone is not enough. Article 317-bis of the Civil Code protects meaningful relations with minor grandchildren, but their exercise depends on the minor's exclusive interest. Therefore, the quality of the relationship, the benefit that can derive from it, and the absence of circumstances that make meetings harmful or too burdensome for the child all count.

What happens if my adolescent grandchild says they do not want to meet me?

Their position must be taken seriously. Minors who have reached twelve years of age, or younger ones capable of discernment, have the right to be heard. It is incorrect to assume that refusal always depends on a parent: its reasons must be understood. Frequentations cannot be imposed against the expressed will of a mature minor.

Which court should I apply to for an application under Article 317-bis of the Civil Code?

The minor's habitual residence matters. As of September 17, 2026, the proceedings provided for by the final paragraph of Article 317-bis of the Civil Code are assigned to the Juvenile Court; the territorial criterion is the place where the grandchild habitually lives. The grandparents' residence is not decisive, nor is the place where the last meetings took place.

Can intrafamily foster care be used because a parent will not let me see my grandchild?

No, it is not a tool to obtain visits. Foster care presupposes a temporary unsuitability of the minor's family environment and serves to guarantee them care and protection. If the child is adequately assisted by the parent with whom they live, the problem of relations with grandparents remains distinct and must be addressed, if necessary, pursuant to Article 317-bis of the Civil Code.