Talking about parental alienation often means facing a painful and difficult fact to name: a child avoids, refuses or fears meeting one of the parents after separation. You may wonder whether the other parent is fueling the distance; but it can also happen that the refusal has independent reasons, linked to experiences lived by the minor, highly exposed conflicts or situations requiring protection.
The point is not to apply a label. I want to help you distinguish concrete conduct from interpretations, understand what space is given to the child's hearing and technical consulting, and what tools exist when established visits are not respected. The legal objective remains the effective protection of the minor and, when compatible with their well-being and safety, the preservation of a significant relationship with both parents.
The child's right to maintain relations with both parents
Shared parenting is a right of the child, not an automatic claim of the adult. Article 337-ter of the civil code recognizes the minor's right to a balanced and continuous relationship with each parent, as well as relations with relatives from both family branches. When deciding on custody, placement and visiting times, however, the judge looks exclusively at the moral and material interest of the child. You can read the provision in the text of Article 337-ter of the civil code.
This principle does not equal a mathematical division of time, nor does it impose meetings under conditions exposing the minor to fear, pressure or prejudice. Rather, it means each parent must respect the other's place in the child's life: in communications, important choices, practical passing moments of visits and in how family conflicts are presented to the other parent.
Refusing to meet a parent requires a prompt and concrete response. Article 473-bis.6 of the code of civil procedure provides that when the minor refuses to meet one or both parents, the judge shall proceed without delay to the hearing and gather summary information on the causes of the refusal. The same rule applies when conduct capable of hindering a balanced relationship with the other parent or relatives is alleged. The rule avoids two opposite errors: forcing a single explanation and letting distance consolidate without understanding its origin.
Alienating conduct: facts matter, not diagnosis
"Parental alienation" does not replace the assessment of behaviors. In common language, the expression indicates situations where a parent, directly or indirectly, contributes to alienating the child from the other. Relevant factors may include, for example, the constant devaluation of the other parent in front of the minor, unjustified obstacles to phone calls or visits, failure to communicate essential information or involving the child in accusations between adults.
However, it is not enough for one of these circumstances to be asserted. It must be placed in time, verifying whether it is repeated, what effect it had on the minor, and whether reasons exist that otherwise explain their opposition. A missed meeting due to illness, a real school commitment or an isolated episode does not carry the same meaning as systematic behavior making the relationship impossible.
A psychological formula cannot decide custody alone. The Court of Cassation has reiterated that when moral or material alienation of the child from the other parent is reported, the judge must ascertain the reality of the conduct with normal means of proof, including technical consultancies and presumptions. A personality assessment detached from objective facts is not sufficient, especially if significant modifications of custody, visits or the minor's residence derive from it. The principle is recalled in the decision of the Court of Cassation no. 4595 of 2025.
For this reason, it is prudent to avoid accusations built on generic words or single out-of-context messages. More useful elements are precise ones: dates of scheduled and missed meetings, alternative proposals formulated or rejected, communications between parents, already existing measures, and actually shared information on school and health. Even these elements must be read in their context: they document a fact, but do not automatically explain the cause of the refusal.
Hearing of the minor: their voice must be considered without transferring the decision
The child has the right to be heard, but must not choose between parents. The minor who has turned twelve, and even younger ones if capable of discernment, is heard in proceedings concerning them. Their opinions are considered based on age and degree of maturity. Procedural discipline also specifies that the hearing may be omitted only with a reasoned measure if it conflicts with the minor's interest, is manifestly superfluous, impossible, or if the minor states they do not wish to be heard.
The hearing is conducted by the judge in ways protecting serenity and confidentiality; the judge may be assisted by experts. Before the meeting, the minor must receive adequate information on the nature of the proceedings and the effects of the hearing. The discipline of Articles 473-bis.4 and 473-bis.5 of the code of civil procedure is reported in Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022.
Listening does not mean literally executing a preference. The judge must understand the child's point of view, the language used to express distress, and the potential presence of external pressures, without asking them to assume the burden of choice. An adolescent refusing a meeting may express serious distress; they may also reproduce adult conflict. The legal response changes precisely based on the emerging causes, not just the intensity of the refusal.
When allegations of domestic violence, abuse or dangerous conduct are made, the issue must not be treated as a simple dispute over visits. The procedure provides specific precautions, prompt hearings, and measures suitable to protect the victim and the minor. In this framework, safety comes before the goal of restoring contacts.
What a CTU can do and its limits
The CTU helps the judge understand aspects requiring technical skills. The court-appointed technical consultancy is ordered by the judge when specialized knowledge is needed to assess, for example, family relations, parental resources, or the impact of conflict on the minor. The consultant does not decide custody and does not replace the judge: they formulate technical assessments within questions established in the trial.
In a controversy over a parent's refusal, the CTU should not turn into the search for a diagnosis closing the case. Its contribution can be useful if it addresses clear and verifiable questions: what dynamics hinder the relationship, what needs the minor manifests, whether risk factors exist, and what contact modalities are compatible with their condition. Conclusions must deal with facts, documents and observations emerged in adversarial proceedings.
The parties can participate in the technical confrontation. In the trial, they can appoint party-appointed consultants, within terms set by the judge, to observe expert operations and formulate remarks. This is not a way to subject the minor to repeated examinations or fuel clashes: it serves to make the used method controllable and prevent a technical conclusion from being accepted without discussion.
If the issue mainly concerns the enforcement of an already fixed schedule, a CTU is not always the first or only step. It may be more important to immediately clarify why meetings are skipped, whether the obstacle is current, and whether concrete regulation of communications, handovers or the gradual resumption of contact is needed.
Possible measures when meetings do not take place
The judge can modify existing rules if they no longer adequately protect the child. Article 337-quinquies of the civil code allows requesting at any time the review of provisions on custody, exercise of parental responsibility, visiting times and maintenance. Modification is not an automatic sanction against the party at fault in the conflict: it must respond to a change or a relevant situation for the minor.
Possible measures vary. The judge can specify times and methods of meetings, establish more orderly communications between parents, order social services interventions when necessary, modify custody or adopt more incisive measures if prejudice is ascertained. The choice depends on the gravity of the situation, the child's age, the reasons for refusal and the concrete possibility of rebuilding a respectful relationship.
Serious violations can have specific consequences. Article 473-bis.39 of the code of civil procedure allows the judge of the ongoing proceeding to modify current measures in the presence of serious defaults, prejudicial acts for the minor, or acts hindering the proper conduct of custody. They can warn the parent, establish a sum for future violations, apply an administrative sanction and, in foreseen cases, order compensation for damages. The current text, amended by Legislative Decree no. 164 of 2024, can be consulted in Legislative Decree no. 164 of 2024.
These remedies do not authorize unilateral initiatives. A parent should not independently suspend scheduled meetings, nor demand to recover them by imposing further pressure on the child, unless there is a concrete danger to address with adequate tools. Acting without a measure, when no real emergency exists, can aggravate conflict and make it harder to prove having protected the minor's interest.
Two different paths: enforcing a measure or asking for its modification
If the problem is the non-observance of still adequate rules, enforcement must be pursued. Article 473-bis.38 governs controversies on the enforcement of measures relating to custody and the exercise of parental responsibility. This may be the relevant path when a clear schedule already exists, meetings are hindered without an emerged reason, and a decision on practical enforcement modalities is needed.
If instead the child's refusal depends on new facts or an arrangement that has become inadequate, mere enforcement of the old provision may not suffice. A request for review may become necessary: not to abandon the relationship, but to ask for rules accounting for ascertained reasons, the minor's safety, and the possibility of building gradual and sustainable contacts.
The distinction avoids contradictory requests. Asking for the immediate application of meetings identical to previous ones and, at the same time, arguing that the situation requires a new arrangement can weaken the clarity of the request. Before choosing the path, it is useful to focus on whether the obstacle concerns the breach of a valid rule or rather the actual need to change it.
For a first comparison, it may be useful to sort already issued measures, an essential chronology of scheduled and realized meetings, strictly relevant communications, and any acts from other proceedings affecting the minor's safety. There is no need to gather every single argument. Elements helping explain the current problem are needed, without unnecessarily exposing the child to adult conflict.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I ask for a judge's intervention if my child refuses to see me?
Yes, refusal may require prompt intervention. Article 473-bis.6 of the code of civil procedure provides for the hearing of the minor and summary information on causes. However, indicating the refusal is not enough: it is useful to explain how long it has lasted, how it manifests, what contacts were attempted, and what facts can clarify its origin.
Must the cohabiting parent force the child to meet the other?
They must foster the relationship within the limits of the child's interest and safety. It is incorrect to fuel refusal or let meetings and communications vanish without reason. But it is equally inappropriate to impose contacts exposing the minor to concrete danger or ignore serious reasons for their distress.
Can the CTU decide custody of my child alone?
No, the judge decides. The CTU provides technical assessments on questions posed by the judge and can be discussed in adversarial proceedings. The provision on custody, placement, visiting times and parental responsibility requires a judicial decision founded on the minor's interest and ascertained facts.
Can I ask for sole custody if the other parent hinders visits?
It is possible to ask, but it does not automatically follow from the denounced obstacle. Sole custody requires shared custody to be contrary to the child's interest. The judge assesses the gravity, continuity and consequences of the conduct, alongside the possibility of adopting less incisive measures restoring or protecting the relationship.
Are sanctions for meeting violations automatic?
No, they must be justified by serious violations or prejudicial acts. The judge can warn, order sums for subsequent non-observance, apply administrative sanctions or assess compensation, but first ascertains concrete circumstances. A missed meeting explained and recovered does not necessarily coincide with obstructive behavior.
Essential regulatory references
To delve deeper into the rules recalled in this guide, you can consult Article 337-ter of the civil code, Articles 473-bis.4, 473-bis.5 and 473-bis.6 in Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022, and the discipline of violations in the 2024 corrective intervention. If you need to understand which path is consistent with an already existing provision and current facts, you can contact me.