Parental alienation is an expression used when a child distances themselves from a parent and it is suspected that the other adult is contributing, through words or behavior, to hindering that relationship. If you find yourself in this situation, the doubt does not concern only missed visits: it can concern the child's refusal, compliance with agreements or court orders, hearing the minor, and the possibility of claiming damages.
The central point is the child's well-being. I will explain why it is not enough to apply a label to family conflict, which facts truly matter, how the remedies currently provided by the code of civil procedure work, and in which cases damages can be included in the claim. Protecting the relationship with both parents does not coincide with forced visitation at all costs: it requires first of all understanding what is happening to the minor.
Parental alienation: concrete conduct matters, not the label
Parental alienation is not a legal category that produces automatic effects. In family proceedings, demonstrable behaviors take on significance: unreasonably preventing visits, systematically discrediting the other parent in front of the child, omitting essential information about school or health, making contact impossible, or involving the minor in adult conflict.
The Court of Cassation has clarified that when the moral or material distancing of a child from a parent is alleged, the judge must ascertain the reality of the facts through ordinary means of proof, including technical consultations and presumptions, without making the decision depend on the abstract validity of a supposed syndrome. The ability to preserve the child's relationships with the other parent is an element of parenting capacity. The reference is in the review by the Court of Cassation on decision no. 13217 of 2021.
Not every conflict between parents is obstructive conduct. An appointment missed due to documented illness, an agreed day change, or an occasional organizational difficulty do not have the same meaning as repeated and unjustified impediments. Conversely, even a sequence of small obstacles can be relevant if, over time, it breaks the child's relationship with the other parent.
It is also necessary to distinguish the refusal that stems from adult pressure from the refusal that expresses distress, fear, or a real difficulty in the relationship. Attributing a child's behavior to manipulation too quickly can conceal problems that require protection. For this reason, the judge cannot choose a solution based on mutual accusations or generic formulas.
Coparenting protects the child, not a parent's right of possession
The child has the right to a balanced and continuous relationship with each parent. Article 337-ter of the civil code links this right to the care, education, instruction, and moral assistance received from both. The judge decides with exclusive reference to the moral and material interest of the minor and primarily evaluates joint custody with both parents. You can read the text of the provision introduced by the filiation reform.
This principle does not impose identical times with each parent nor does it transform every difficulty into a violation. Coparenting requires continuity and quality of the relationship. For example, weight is given to the possibility of speaking freely with both parents, the regularity of visits, involvement in important decisions, and protecting the child from adult tensions.
If family abuse, domestic violence, or conduct that endangers the minor is alleged, safety comes before the regularity of visits. The rules of family procedure provide a specific path for these allegations and allow the judge to regulate visits in a manner suitable not to compromise the safety of the child and the victim. Obstructive conduct cannot be presumed simply because a parent asks for protection.
The child's refusal must be heard and understood without delay
A child's refusal to meet a parent does not prove manipulation on its own. Article 473-bis.6 of the code of civil procedure establishes that when the minor refuses to meet one or both parents, the judge proceeds without delay to hear them, gathers information on the causes of the refusal, and may shorten procedural terms. The same mechanism operates when conduct hindering the child's relationship with the other parent or relatives of either family branch is reported.
The minor who has reached twelve years of age, and even a younger one if capable of discernment, must be heard in proceedings concerning them. Their opinions are considered in relation to age and maturity, but do not become a decision entrusted to the child. Hearing does not mean asking the minor to choose between mother and father. It means gathering their point of view in a manner that protects their serenity and privacy.
Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022 governs both the hearing and the refusal of the minor. The same legislation requires that when social or health services intervene, reports must distinguish ascertained facts from statements by the people involved and evaluations by operators. This separation is important: it prevents a hypothesis from being treated as an already proven fact.
Technical consultation does not replace the judge's decision. It can help understand family dynamics, but it must have a precise subject and cannot turn the minor into a tool of the process. The judge remains obligated to evaluate all elements together: relationship with both parents, actual conduct, the child's needs, and possible risks.
What measures can protect the relationship with the child
If a measure on custody or visitation already exists, the problem may be its enforcement. Article 473-bis.38 of the code of civil procedure governs the enforcement of custody measures and disputes over the exercise of parental responsibility. The judge can determine the concrete modalities necessary to execute the decision, always looking to the best interests of the minor.
A request for enforcement serves when the content of the decision is already clear, but is disregarded or has become a source of practical conflict. Modification of measures serves instead when the existing regulation no longer adequately protects the child. This can happen if the schedule is no longer workable, if the minor's refusal requires different intervention, or if behaviors capable of damaging the relationship with a parent emerge.
Article 473-bis.39 of the code of civil procedure concerns serious breaches and acts that cause prejudice to the minor or hinder the proper conduct of custody and parental responsibility. The judge can modify the measures in force and, even together, admonish the non-compliant parent, set a sum owed for future violations or delays, apply an administrative sanction from 75 to 5,000 euros in favor of the Cassa delle ammende, and order compensation for damages in favor of the other parent or the minor.
Measures are not automatic or equivalent to each other. The admonition signals the seriousness of the violation; the sum linked to future non-compliance aims to make the measure effective; the administrative sanction has a different function from compensation. Compensation, in fact, is not a fine: it requires the judge to ascertain prejudicial conduct and the damaging consequences for which reparation is requested.
The currently in force wording of articles 473-bis.38 and 473-bis.39, updated by Legislative Decree no. 164 of 2024, can be consulted in the text published on Normattiva. Article 709-ter of the code of civil procedure, often cited in decisions and less recent comments, instead belongs to the previous discipline: for proceedings instituted from February 28, 2023, the provisions of the new procedure apply, barring special rules; proceedings already pending on that date remain regulated by prior rules, as resulting from the transitional discipline published in the Official Gazette.
Endofamilial damage compensation: when it can find space
Compensation does not stem solely from a missed meeting. The absence of a visit can depend on very different circumstances: an intentional obstacle, a misunderstanding, a necessary choice to protect the child, or an organizational problem. To speak of damages, it is necessary to reconstruct the conduct, its seriousness, its duration, and the effect produced on the minor's relationship or the other parent's right.
The damages of the minor and those of the other parent remain distinct. The child suffers their own prejudice when the adults' behaviors harm their ability to build or maintain a healthy relationship with a parent; the other parent can instead allege damages deriving from the violation of family duties and unjustified hindrance to the relationship. The judge evaluates claims and evidence without automatically overlapping the two positions.
The Court of Cassation recognized, within the framework of the then-current article 709-ter of the code of civil procedure, the possibility of proposing the compensation claim within family proceedings for prejudicial acts committed against the minor. Today, the new procedure expressly includes compensation claims resulting from the violation of family duties. Claiming damages does not replace immediate child protection. If the relationship is in danger, measures suitable for stopping or correcting the prejudice come first.
Facts that truly change the response
The continuity of episodes matters more than a generic reconstruction of the conflict. Messages, communications about drop-offs and pick-ups, unanswered requests, visitation schedules, school or health decisions, and previously issued measures can clarify whether there is an isolated impediment or constant conduct. They are not used to turn the child into evidence: they are used to reconstruct with precision what the adults did or omitted.
The content of the existing decision also matters. If it establishes days, times, and methods of meetings, the discussion concerns compliance with defined rules. If instead it contains overly generic indications or does not address the current problem, it may be necessary to request different regulation. It is not useful to force the enforcement of an ambiguous agreement without first clarifying what the order truly requires.
When the relationship is severely deteriorated, a solution may provide for gradual interventions, protected modalities, or the involvement of services indicated by the judge with specific tasks. If allegations of violence or serious prejudice emerge, it is incorrect to treat them as a simple obstacle to coparenting: they require adequate assessment and measures consistent with the safety of the minor.
Frequently asked questions
Does my child's refusal prove parental alienation?
No, the refusal is not enough on its own. It can depend on pressures from the other parent, but also on fear, distress, previous conflicts, or difficulties in the relationship. Article 473-bis.6 of the code of civil procedure requires ascertaining its causes without delay. The useful response is not to immediately choose who is right, but to understand what the minor is experiencing and which behaviors of the adults affect them.
Can I ask for compliance with visits already fixed?
Yes, if a measure is not respected. Enforcement concerns decisions already adopted regarding custody and visitation. If the problem is instead that those rules have become inadequate or do not address the current situation, it may be necessary to request a modification. The distinction matters because enforcing a rule and replacing it are different remedies.
Does the judge always hear the minor?
The minor of at least twelve years of age is normally heard. Even a younger one can be if capable of discernment. The hearing may not take place only in hypotheses provided by law, with a motivated order, for example if it is contrary to the minor's interest or manifestly superfluous. Their opinions are considered in relation to maturity.
What sums can the judge order against the non-compliant parent?
The sums have different functions. The judge can set a sum owed for each future violation or delay, apply an administrative sanction from 75 to 5,000 euros and, if the prerequisites are met, recognize compensation. The sanction goes to the Cassa delle ammende; compensation can be ordered in favor of the other parent or the minor.
Can I also ask for compensation for the damages suffered by my child?
The claim can concern the minor's prejudice. However, it is necessary to distinguish their position from that of the parent and allege facts suitable for demonstrating prejudicial conduct and the claimed consequences. Compensation is not an automatic consequence of every disagreement over visits and does not replace the measures necessary to immediately protect the child.
Where to start
Before asking for intervention, it is useful to separate facts from interpretations. Reconstruct the episodes in chronological order, keep relevant communications, and identify the measure or agreement governing visits. If the problem concerns the child's refusal, possible obstructive conduct, or fear for their safety, you can contact me to frame the remedy consistent with the concrete situation.