When the other parent uses money registered in your child's name, proposes selling their property or makes financial decisions without consultation, the issue goes beyond mere adult disagreements. A minor's estate must remain separate from that of the parents, and every choice must pursue the child's best interest rather than resolve personal needs or family conflicts.
I want to help you distinguish normal management acts from those requiring the control of the tutelary judge, understand when a withdrawal may be problematic, and determine what remedies exist if the administration has already been harmful. We will also examine why an unauthorized sale, a conflict of interest, or repeatedly opaque management requires distinct responses.
The parent administers the assets but does not become the owner
The child's assets remain the child's. Parents exercising parental responsibility represent the child in civil acts and administer their estate until majority or emancipation. This function does not allow anyone to confuse the minor's bank account, inherited real estate, or compensation sum with the personal resources of the person exercising parental responsibility.
Ordinary management is simpler. Daily operations that preserve the estate or serve its normal administration may fall within ordinary activities. The boundary does not depend on the label given to the operation, but on its concrete effect: a choice that reduces, encumbers, transforms, or exposes the minor's estate to risk is not a simple routine management activity.
More impactful acts require additional guarantees. Article 320 of the Italian Civil Code requires, for acts exceeding ordinary administration, the authorization of the tutelary judge and proven necessity or evident utility for the minor. This rule applies, among other things, to the sale, mortgage, or pledge of the child's assets, the waiver or acceptance of inheritances and legacies, loans, long-term leases, settlements, and the collection of capital sums. This discipline is also illustrated on the Bologna Court page on authorization pursuant to Article 320 of the Civil Code.
Separation alone does not eliminate these limits. The fact that the minor lives predominantly with one parent, or that the parents are separated or divorced, does not automatically turn one of them into the sole unrestricted manager of the estate. One must look at the provision governing parental responsibility, the specific act to be performed, and any authorization required by law.
Account withdrawals and sales: why they do not have the same meaning
A withdrawal is not lawful simply because a parent has access to the account. One must first establish to whom the sum belongs and where it comes from. A balance registered in the child's name may derive from inheritances, donations, compensation, savings accumulated for them, or sums paid by third parties. If it is the child's capital, its use cannot become an indistinct resource for the parent's personal expenses.
The collection of capital requires particular attention. Article 320 also requires the authorization of the tutelary judge to collect capital belonging to a minor, and the judge determines its employment. For this reason, a substantial withdrawal, the closure of an investment, or the collection of a sum intended for the child should not be treated as a routine banking operation just because the parent is authorized to operate the account.
Expenses for the child do not always coincide with using their estate. Maintenance, education, and daily care are the duties of parents. Using the minor's money to cover personal debts, adult expenses, or disbursements unrelated to the child's interest raises a different issue from the documented use of sums for a necessity directly concerning the child. The connection to their interest must be real and verifiable.
The sale of an asset requires preventive control. Selling a real estate share, a property, a valuable asset, or establishing a lien on a minor's asset affects the consistency of their estate. The tutelary judge does not authorize the act solely based on the parents' wishes: necessity or evident utility for the child must emerge, with concrete elements regarding the asset, its value, and the destination of the proceeds.
Disagreements between parents are not resolved by using the child's estate
No parent can replace necessary consent with a accomplished fact. If parents do not agree on an important financial choice, Article 320 refers to the rules on disagreements in the exercise of parental responsibility. The conflict must be addressed before the judge, not bypassed with a withdrawal, an isolated signature, or pressure on the other parent.
A conflict of interest changes who can represent the minor. If a parent has an economic interest contrary to that of the child, they cannot represent them in that specific operation. When the conflict involves only one parent, representation falls to the other; if it involves both, the tutelary judge appoints a special curator, namely a figure tasked with acting for the minor in that specific matter. The need for a curator also arises when parents cannot or will not perform an act necessary in the child's interest, as recalled by the Udine Court guide on petitions concerning minor assets.
The conflict must be concrete. Personal tension between parents is insufficient. A conflicting financial interest in a sale to third parties or settlement of a dispute also involving the parent can require independent representation under the applicable rules. Purchase of the child’s asset by a parent exercising parental responsibility is different: Article 323 prohibits it, and appointing a special curator does not make it permissible.
Remedies if the administration is already harmful or opaque
The absence of authorization does not render the performed act irrelevant. For acts requiring the control of the tutelary judge, Article 322 of the Italian Civil Code provides a remedy of annulment when the rules on representation and authorizations have not been respected. This does not mean every operation can be automatically cancelled: one must identify the act, the violated rule, the subjects involved, and the effects produced also toward third parties.
Poor administration can lead to removal. Article 334 of the Italian Civil Code allows the court, when the minor's estate is poorly administered, to impose conditions for management or to remove one or both parents from administration. This is a measure aimed at estate protection: it does not automatically coincide with forfeiture of parental responsibility and does not require turning every family disagreement into a more severe accusation than justified by the facts.
A broader prejudice may require different measures. If asset management is part of conduct that more generally harms the child, the measures provided by Articles 333 or 330 of the Italian Civil Code may also come into play. The former concerns prejudicial conduct that does not justify forfeiture; the latter requires violation or neglect of parental duties, or abuse of related powers, with serious prejudice to the child. For proceedings under Article 333, jurisdiction may also depend on the pending status of a separation, divorce, or parental responsibility proceeding, as noted by the Juvenile Court of Bologna in its page on civil jurisdiction.
The remedy must follow the actual problem. If a useful act must be performed but the parents are in conflict, the appointment of a special curator may be pivotal. If an extraordinary act has yet to be concluded, the issue is preventive authorization. If instead unjustified withdrawals or repeatedly damaging management emerge, the reconstruction of the sums, initiatives to preserve the estate, and, where conditions are met, measures regarding administration or parental responsibility become relevant.
What facts help determine if concrete protection exists
The origin of the money is the first datum to clarify. A bank statement, a wire transfer order, a will, a deed of donation, an insurance payout, or a judicial decree can show whether the sum belongs to the child and what destination was intended. Every expense does not need to be turned into a trial, but it is important to distinguish what documents an employment for the minor from what demonstrates a personal advantage for the adult.
The timing of the operation also matters. For an already signed sale, different information is needed compared to a merely proposed sale. For a bank account, what matters is whether the sum was withdrawn, transferred, invested, or merely blocked by the bank. For an inheritance, one must distinguish acceptance, waiver, division, and the potential alienation of the received asset.
Keep documents that you legally possess. Communications between parents, available statements, notarized deeds, received bank documents, registry searches, and already issued orders can make the sequence of facts clearer. However, avoid initiatives that increase conflict or replace judicial protection with contestations devoid of data: the point is not to prove who is right in the relationship, but to protect an asset belonging to the minor.
Alternatives to consider before and after the act
Before the act, the correct path is to request the necessary authorization. If a sale, collection, or other extraordinary operation can truly benefit the child, the petition to the tutelary judge must explain why the operation serves the minor and how the proceeds will be protected. Authorization is not a formal step: it serves to verify that the estate is not sacrificed without a reason attributable to the child.
If impartial representation is lacking, interests must be separated. The special curator does not automatically replace the parents in the child's life. They intervene for the specific matter in which their position prevents adequate representation. This solution differs from removal from administration: the former addresses a specific conflict, while the latter concerns asset administration that proves inadequate or harmful.
After an operation, hasty conclusions must be avoided. A withdrawal may be documented as an expense in the minor's interest or may lack a coherent justification. A sale may have been authorized, may still be only planned, or may have been concluded without the required control. The answer changes because the actionable remedies and consequences to evaluate change.
Estate protection does not exclude dialogue, but it does not depend on it. A clear agreement between parents can prevent a child's asset from becoming a battleground. However, if a decision requires authorization or presents a conflict of interest, private agreement does not replace the control required by law. The minor's best interest remains the guiding criterion for every step.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I prevent the other parent from withdrawing from my child's account?
A simple disagreement is not enough to block every operation. One must understand who holds the account, where the sums come from, what powers exist at the bank, and whether the withdrawal concerns the minor's capital. When the operation exceeds ordinary management or lacks the child's interest, the dispute must shift to adequate judicial protections rather than unilateral initiatives devoid of effectiveness.
Does the sale of a minor's property require the consent of both parents?
Proper representation and the authorisation required for the transaction are necessary. Article 320 requires necessity or evident benefit for the minor. Alongside the guardianship judge, Article 21 of Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022 permits authorisation by the notary executing the deed for public instruments and authenticated private agreements in the specified cases. Authorisations concerning court proceedings listed in that provision remain reserved to the judiciary. If both parents exercise parental responsibility, one cannot freely decide on the sale alone.
Is an act performed without authorization automatically void?
No, it is incorrect to always speak of automatic voidness. Article 322 of the Italian Civil Code provides for the annulability of acts performed without respecting the rules on authorizations and representation. To understand what protection is possible, one must distinguish the concluded act, the subjects involved, the potential presence of third parties, and the type of violation that occurred.
Can I ask for the removal of the other parent from asset administration?
Removal is provided when the estate is poorly administered. Article 334 allows the court to impose management conditions or to remove one or both parents from administration. Every contested choice should not be labeled as poor administration: unjustified withdrawals, risky operations, lack of necessary authorizations, or using the estate for purposes extraneous to the child assume particular relevance.
Who protects my child if both parents have an economic interest in the operation?
A special curator may be necessary. When the conflict of interest involves both parents, the tutelary judge can appoint a figure to represent the minor in the specific transaction. The curator does not generally take the place of the parents: they act within the perimeter necessary to prevent an asset decision from being made by someone who may derive a personal advantage from it.
Protecting the asset before conflict consumes it
If unexplained movements, an imminent sale, or an economic interest of the other parent incompatible with your child's exist, it is useful to immediately address the documentable facts and distinguish the remedy that is truly needed. You can contact me to examine the situation and identify the most suitable path to protect the minor's estate.