The intended parent can have very different protections depending on whether the filiation relationship is already recognized or still needs to be established. If your biological partner prevents you from seeing the child, it is understandable to wonder whether a shared family project is sufficient, whether the birth certificate is decisive, and whether the end of the relationship can erase a bond built in daily life.
On this page, I want to clarify what changes between someone who is already a legal parent and someone who, despite having assumed a real caregiving role, is not yet recognized as such. I will discuss the intentional mother in medically assisted reproduction pathways, adoption in specific cases, and the legal steps needed to enforce an already regulated relationship. The starting point is not the conflict between adults: it is the concrete protection of the child's position.
Parental status determines immediate protection
If you are already recognized as a parent, separation does not erase filiation. Your name on the birth certificate, or a court order that has already established the relationship, distinguishes your situation from that of a person outside the filiation. In this case, the problem is not obtaining permission to visit the child; rather, it is necessary to regulate or make effective parental responsibility, visiting schedules, communications, and important decisions for the child's life.
Article 337-ter of the Civil Code recognizes the minor child's right to maintain a balanced and continuous relationship with each parent. The judge decides by looking at the moral and material interest of the child and can determine where the child habitually lives, how time is distributed, and in which matters parents must make joint decisions. This rule also applies in proceedings concerning children born outside of marriage. The current text of the Civil Code, including Article 337-ter, is the reference for this discipline.
Being present in a child's life does not always coincide with having parental status. An intense emotional relationship, daily caregiving, or contribution to family choices may be essential facts, but they do not by themselves confer parental responsibility, decision-making powers, or the right to request the same measures provided for two separated parents. Before choosing an action, one must therefore distinguish the emotional level, which deserves attention, from the legal level of filiation.
This distinction also protects against a frequent error: immediately seeking a regulation of visits as if the parental relationship were already established. If status is lacking, the request may first require an instrument capable of legally recognizing that relationship. If, on the other hand, the status exists, it is incorrect to treat the excluded parent as an occasional figure in the child's life.
Intentional mother and medically assisted reproduction practiced abroad
Ruling no. 68 of 2025 concerns a precise hypothesis of intentional parenthood. With a decision filed on May 22, 2025, and published in the Official Journal on May 28, 2025, the Constitutional Court declared Article 8 of Law no. 40 of 2004 illegitimate to the extent that it does not recognize the status of child also to the woman who gave prior consent to medically assisted reproduction and the consequent assumption of parental responsibility.
The ruling concerns a child born in Italy to a woman who underwent medically assisted reproduction techniques abroad, in compliance with the law of the foreign country, together with another woman. The intentional mother's consent is not a formal detail: it is the fact that connects the procreative project to the assumption of responsibility towards the newborn. The Court based its decision on the need to ensure the child a secure and stable status from birth. You can read the prerequisites and scope of the decision in the Constitutional Court ruling no. 68 of 2025.
What elements distinguish the case covered by the ruling
It is not enough to have desired a child together. Medically assisted reproduction carried out abroad in accordance with the rules applicable in that country, birth in Italy, and the intentional woman's prior consent to the technique and parental responsibility are required. For this reason, documents from the procreative path, declarations made for the formation of the birth certificate, and other documents showing a joint project before birth take on significance.
The decision cannot be automatically extended to every family configuration. It does not resolve cases of birth abroad, situations of male intentional parenthood, or events connected to surrogacy with the same rule. In these cases, confusing the pathways can create expectations that do not correspond to the available legal instrument. The decisive question is from which facts derives the status you are asking to protect.
If the prerequisites of the ruling are met and the filiation relationship is recognized, the termination of the couple does not allow the biological mother to unilaterally eliminate the other mother from the child's life. From that moment on, the issue arises, common to any parental separation, of organizing a stable relationship respectful of the minor's needs.
When status is lacking: adoption in specific cases
Adoption in specific cases can recognize a parental relationship already rooted in the minor's life. Article 44 of Law no. 184 of 1983 regulates hypotheses different from full adoption and, under letter d), contemplates the case in which the impossibility of pre-adoptive foster care is ascertained. In families formed by same-sex couples, this institution has been used to protect the relationship between the minor and the biological parent's partner, but it requires a judicial assessment and does not arise from a simple agreement between adults.
The court must verify that adoption corresponds to the best interests of the child. Therefore, the continuity of care, the relationship built with the child, the role effectively assumed in the family project, and the consequences that an interruption of the bond would have all matter. A brief or merely occasional relationship cannot be equated with a concrete and stable parental function. The text of Law no. 184 of 1983 on adoption in specific cases outlines the regulatory framework of the institution.
Adoption is not a shortcut to force visitation. It serves to protect the minor through the recognition of an adoptive filiation relationship when the legal conditions are proven. The biological parent's dissent may be relevant in the proceedings, but it does not transform the issue into a private choice free from judicial control. What must emerge is why adoption protects the child, not merely the adult's desire to preserve a relationship.
Effects on the relationship with the family of origin and the new family
Adoption in specific cases does not sever the minor's original ties. The child retains the relationship with their family of origin and acquires the adoptive bond. This element is particularly important when the minor already has a significant family history and must not be faced with an artificial alternative between different relationships.
The Constitutional Court has also eliminated the provision that excluded civil relations between the adoptee in specific cases and the adopter's relatives. Consequently, the adoptive relationship can also have significance with respect to the adoptive parent's family network. Ruling no. 79 of 2022 explains that the protection of the minor also includes this relational dimension, without eliminating the bond with the biological family.
If the relationship is already regulated, the other parent cannot suspend it unilaterally
A provision on visitation schedules must be respected. When two people are already parents of the child and the judge has regulated custody, permanence, or communications, the other parent cannot permanently modify those modalities with a unilateral decision. Naturally, contingent needs may exist, such as an illness or a serious unexpected event; it is quite another thing to repeatedly prevent meetings without a reason connected to the child's well-being.
Article 473-bis.38 of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates the enforcement of custody orders and disputes over the exercise of parental responsibility. The judge can define the practical modalities necessary in the best interest of the minor. Article 473-bis.39 also provides remedies in the presence of serious breaches or acts that hinder the correct conduct of custody and parental responsibility, including the modification of existing provisions. The provisions can be consulted in Legislative Decree no. 164 of 2024.
Urgency depends on concrete prejudice, not mere conflictuality. An imminent relocation, the total interruption of contacts, or conduct that rapidly compromises the child's relationship with a parent may require timely measures. However, not every discussion about schedules has the same gravity. It is necessary to distinguish organizational difficulties resolvable through agreement from systematic behaviors that make the relationship unstable or impossible.
Facts and documents that change the answer
The birth certificate is the first document to understand. It indicates who is registered as a parent and allows two different problems to be separated: the implementation of an already recognized parenthood and the direct request to establish or protect a status not yet formalized. If rectifications, pending proceedings, or documents formed abroad exist, it is not sufficient to stop at the denomination used by the adults.
In medically assisted reproduction pathways, prior consent and treatment documentation can show whether there was a shared parental project within the terms required by ruling no. 68 of 2025. In adoption in specific cases, however, the facts describing concrete care of the minor become central: daily life, continuity of relationships, participation in decisions, and the recognizability of the parental role in the child's life.
Chronology helps avoid overlapping different issues. To orient oneself, it is useful to arrange the birth certificate, documents from the procreative pathway or adoption, any judicial provisions, and communications showing the interruption of contacts in chronological order. There is no need to involve the minor in the conflict to prove the bond: objective elements that recount what happened without asking the child to choose between adults are preferable.
Alternatives to consider before taking action
An agreement is useful only if it starts from the correct legal position. When both are already recognized as parents, an agreement can organize handovers, holidays, communications, school, medical care, and financial contributions. It can reduce the uncertainty of daily life, but it cannot restrict the child's unavailable rights nor replace the judge's control if the agreement conflicts with their interest.
If status does not yet exist, a private agreement can express practical availability from the biological parent, but it does not in itself create filiation, parental responsibility, or the resulting family relationships. In this situation, it is necessary to distinguish the hypothesis of the intentional mother covered by the constitutional ruling from the one where adoption in specific cases can be evaluated. Choosing the wrong remedy can delay the child's protection.
When the bond is already broken, it is best to avoid aggressive communications, pressure on the minor, or initiatives aimed at pitting them against the biological parent. Documentation must show verifiable facts and willingness to build relationship methods respectful of the child's age, habits, and serenity. If you need to clarify what legal position results in your case, you can contact me.
Frequently asked questions
Can I ask to see my child if I am listed on the birth certificate?
Yes, you can ask for the relationship to be regulated and made effective. If you are already recognized as a parent, the end of the couple's relationship does not eliminate your role. The judge can establish visiting schedules, communications, and decisions relating to the child, based on their concrete interest. The other parent cannot unilaterally transform the separation into stable exclusion.
Does ruling no. 68 of 2025 apply to every intentional parent?
No, the ruling has precise boundaries. It concerns a child born in Italy to a couple of women who underwent medically assisted reproduction abroad in compliance with local law, when the intentional mother gave prior consent to the technique and parental responsibility. Other birth pathways cannot be automatically assimilated to this case.
Does a written agreement with the biological mother make me a parent?
No, a private agreement alone does not create filiation status. It can help organize contacts if there is cooperation, but it does not automatically confer parental responsibility, decision-making powers, or all the effects of filiation. If legal recognition is lacking, the instrument provided by the legal system that can protect the child must be identified.
Does the biological parent's refusal always prevent adoption in specific cases?
For a social parent, refusal is not an automatic veto. Article 46 governs assent and its limits. For adoption under Article 44, letter d), Joint Divisions judgment no. 38162 of 2022 requires assessment of refusal in light of the child’s interests. It may prevent adoption where no relationship of affection and care exists or the intended parent abandoned the partner and child. Couple conflict alone is insufficient, but the actual relationship and all adoption requirements must be established.
Must I involve my child to prove that a bond exists between us?
You should not make your child an instrument of conflict. The relationship can be demonstrated through continuity of care, daily life and relevant documents. Judicial hearing follows statutory safeguards, rather than the adults’ choice alone. For adoption in specific cases, Article 45 requires the consent of a minor aged fourteen or older; from twelve the child must be heard personally, and younger children must be heard taking account of their capacity for discernment.
Institutional references
To delve deeper, I referenced the Constitutional Court ruling no. 68 of 2025, Law no. 184 of 1983 on adoption, and the provisions of the civil code and code of civil procedure relating to parental responsibility and the enforcement of family provisions.