The separation of parents does not require dividing siblings. However, it can happen that when planning the children's new daily life, a parent proposes different homes, separate times, or a distinct primary placement for each. It is natural to wonder whether siblings have the right to stay together, how much their bond matters, whether they can express a preference, and what to do if a decision distances them.
I want to clarify a point that avoids many misunderstandings: unity between siblings has real weight, but it does not work as a rigid rule valid in every situation. We will look together at which criterion guides the judge, why custody and placement are different concepts, what facts make a common or separate solution reasonable, and how to distinguish an immediate challenge from a subsequent modification request.
The relationship between siblings falls under the protection of the best interests of children
The decisive criterion is the well-being of each child. Article 337-ter of the Italian Civil Code requires the judge to adopt measures concerning children with exclusive reference to their moral and material interests. The provision also protects the continuity of the relationship with both parents and with relatives from each family branch. In a separation, the daily relationship between siblings can therefore be an important element to understand which organization best protects the growth and stability of minors. Codice civile, articolo 337-ter
There is no automatic cohabitation. The civil code does not establish that siblings must always live in the same house after separation. The decision cannot be reduced either to an arithmetic division of the children or to the opposite idea that the sibling group must remain indistinct, without considering personal needs. The correct question is whether living together constitutes, in that family, a concrete protection and whether there are equally concrete reasons to derogate from it.
Living together can have a protective value. The Italian Constitutional Court has recognized, regarding adoption, that the loss of the unity of life and education among siblings can cause serious harm subject to rigorous judicial evaluation. This is not a decision on the conditions of parents' separation and does not create an automatic rule for such proceedings; however, it helps to understand why the sibling bond cannot be treated as a secondary detail. Corte costituzionale, sentenza n. 148 del 1992
The real relationship matters, not just kinship. Two very close siblings who share school, domestic rhythms, friends, and daily support can suffer significantly from the loss of cohabitation. The situation is different for children with a significant age difference, with already autonomous routines, or with needs that make a different arrangement necessary. It is not necessary to demonstrate an ideal bond: facts are needed showing what role that relationship plays in the life of each minor.
Custody and placement answer different questions
Custody concerns important decisions. Joint custody keeps both parents involved in relevant choices regarding the child's life, such as education, health, upbringing, and habitual residence. It does not mean that each child must spend exactly half of their time with each parent, nor that parents must agree on every ordinary choice. The joint model remains oriented towards the effective participation of both, provided it is compatible with the best interests of the minor.
Placement concerns daily life. By primary placement, we mean, in practical terms, the home where the child regularly lives and from which school, care, activities, and time with the other parent are organized. It is therefore possible for siblings to be in the joint custody of both parents but have, in particular circumstances, different placements. The Italian Ministry of Justice recalls that joint custody does not necessarily entail an equal division of time and that the measure normally identifies the parent with whom the child lives stably. Ministero della giustizia, custodia dei figli minorenni e responsabilità genitoriale
Separating siblings does not resolve adults' conflict. It is not a measure to be used to compensate for parents' claims, equally distribute children, or make visitation times apparently symmetrical. If one child lives with one parent and the other with the other parent, understandable benefits must emerge for both minors. The adults' greater organizational convenience, alone, does not explain why the separation of siblings is in the children's best interests.
Distance changes the effect of the choice. Two nearby homes, a common school, and a coordinated calendar can allow siblings to see each other continuously even if placement is not identical. If, on the other hand, the homes are far apart, schedules prevent ordinary meetings, and weekends alternate without overlaps, the same choice produces a much more incisive distancing. The judge must look at the actual life resulting from the calendar, not just the formula written in the measure.
When a separate placement can be justified
Safety comes before cohabitation. If a sibling is exposed to aggression, threats, severely devaluing behavior, or other conduct causing current prejudice, the need for protection may make a distinct arrangement necessary. In this situation, abstractly recalling the value of sibling unity is not enough. It is necessary to avoid a situation where keeping the children together forces the most vulnerable one to live through a harmful relationship.
Individual needs must be verifiable. A different organization can be considered when a child needs continuous medical care, specific educational support, or school stability that the other does not share. A mature personal choice can also be relevant. However, the different ages of the children or generic parental preferences are not sufficient: the advantage of the proposed solution must be explained with the school attended, travel times, necessary care, and concrete available resources.
Separation must not erase the relationship. When cohabitation is not possible or not favorable, it remains necessary to ask how to preserve contact compatible with the well-being of both. Common weekend times, coordinated holidays, family celebrations, and age-appropriate communication methods can take on significance. A sporadic meeting has a different meaning than regular interaction that allows siblings to continue recognizing themselves in their daily lives.
A protective measure can be temporary. If the difficulty justifying distance is linked to a crisis phase, a treatment path, or a conflict requiring support interventions, the solution should not be considered immutable for this reason alone. Time, the children's growth, and the evolution of conditions may make it appropriate to reconsider the calendar, the proximity of homes, or the methods of sibling visits.
Hearing the children clarifies facts, but does not transfer the decision to them
The minor can express their opinion. In proceedings requiring measures concerning them, a child who has reached the age of twelve is heard by the judge; they may be heard even if younger, when capable of discernment, meaning capable of adequately understanding the situation and formulating their own thoughts. Their opinions must be considered in relation to age and maturity. Decreto legislativo n. 149 del 2022, articoli 473-bis.4 e 473-bis.5 del codice di procedura civile
Being heard does not equal choosing. The child must not bear the burden of deciding which parent to live with or whether to stay with their sibling. However, they can explain aspects adults miss: the sense of protection received from the sibling, the fear of losing their presence, the impact of travel, the need not to change schools, or the suffering caused by a conflicted cohabitation. The judge places this information into the overall assessment without turning the minor into the referee of the separation.
Will must be read in context. An adolescent asking to live with a parent different from their sibling may have a stable reason, such as an established school or a personal path requiring continuity. Conversely, the same request may stem from transitory tension or adult pressure. For this reason, consistency over time of the expressed position, the reasons indicated by the child, and the practical effects of the choice are relevant, rather than just the preference manifested at a single moment.
Parents must bring concrete elements. To ask that siblings stay together, it is useful to explain what daily routine would be protected: school escort, study support, shared activities, family network, and realistic times with the other parent. To support a distinct solution, equally precise reasons are needed. Saying that a child "is better off" with a parent or that "siblings must never be divided" does not put the judge in a position to evaluate consequences and alternatives.
Agreements between parents and modification of conditions
An agreement can provide continuity for children. Parents can agree that siblings live primarily in the same house, organizing orderly times with the other parent. In other situations, they can provide for non-coincident placements but stable and genuinely practicable sibling meetings. The value of the agreement depends on its ability to give children understandable rules, rather than appearing formally balanced between adults.
The agreement remains subject to the best interests of minors. In joint applications, the judge can take note of agreements, but cannot adopt conditions that conflict with the children's interests. For this reason, it is important that the text clearly indicates where minors live, how school and overnight stays are organized, what times they spend with each parent, and how sibling frequency is protected if they do not share the same placement.
Conditions regarding children are reviewable. Article 337-quinquies of the Italian Civil Code allows parents to request at any time the revision of provisions on custody, exercise of parental responsibility, and financial contribution. Revision is not meant to reopen an already decided conflict without reason: it requires showing why the previous arrangement no longer responds, or never factually responded, to the children's needs. A relocation, new school schedules, a difficulty in the relationship between siblings, or their aging can become relevant. Codice civile, articolo 337-quinquies
The modification must propose a practicable solution. It is not enough to point out that siblings suffer from distance. The request gains concreteness if it clarifies which alternative calendar solves the problem, how it reconciles with school and activities, what travel it entails, and how it also guarantees the relationship with both parents. A clear project allows comparing the effects of the existing solution with those of the proposed modification.
Reclamation and modification request: which path to consider
The remedy depends on the measure received. Against temporary and urgent measures provided by the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, a reclamation to the court of appeal is permitted. Reclamation is also provided for temporary measures issued during the proceedings that introduce substantial modifications to the custody or placement of minors. Current discipline expressly includes these hypotheses after modifications introduced by Legislative Decree No. 164 of 2024, which entered into force on November 26, 2024. Decreto legislativo n. 164 del 2024, articolo 3
The term for reclamation is ten days. Article 473-bis.24 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure sets a peremptory deadline of ten days from pronouncement at the hearing, or from communication or notification if earlier. A peremptory deadline means that failure to comply precludes that remedy. Therefore, it is essential to immediately read the nature of the measure and the date from which the term runs, without confusing a temporary measure with the final decision. Codice di procedura civile, articolo 473-bis.24
Subsequent facts follow a different path. If the problem arises after the decision, for example because travel becomes impracticable or siblings truly stop seeing each other, it is not necessarily an original error to be reclaimed. The code provides that supervening circumstances are brought before the court of merit and allows modifying or revoking temporary and urgent measures in the presence of new facts or new investigative assessments.
Documentation must describe daily life. Calendars actually followed, essential communications between parents, school schedules, health certifications when relevant, and feedback on concrete difficulties can help represent the problem. There is no need to accumulate messages unrelated to the choice regarding children. Instead, it is necessary to show, with respect for them, how separation impacts the sibling relationship and why a different organization would be more appropriate.
Frequently asked questions
Can I ask that my children remain placed with the same parent?
Yes, you can expressly propose this solution. The request must explain what concrete benefit it offers the children: school continuity, shared habits, mutual support, fewer travels, and the possibility of maintaining orderly relationships with the other parent. The judge does not apply an automatic preference, but evaluates whether sibling unity protects the best interests of each minor.
Does joint custody prevent separating siblings?
No, custody and placement are distinct levels. Joint custody mainly concerns the participation of both parents in important decisions. Placement concerns habitual residence and daily organization. Therefore, in particular circumstances, siblings can have different placements while remaining in the joint custody of both parents.
My child is twelve: can they say they do not want to be separated from their sibling?
They can express their opinion in the hearing provided by law. From the age of twelve, the minor is heard in proceedings concerning them; a younger child can also be heard if capable of discernment. Their position does not solely decide the outcome, but can show the concrete value of the relationship with the sibling and the impact of the proposed separation.
Can I file a reclamation against a separate placement ordered during the lawsuit?
Reclamation is possible in the hypotheses provided by Article 473-bis.24. It concerns, among other things, temporary measures that entail substantial modifications to the placement of minors. The deadline is peremptory and short: ten days, with the running of the term regulated by the rule. If the problem stems from subsequent facts, the issue must instead be presented to the judge handling the merits.
Can a measure concerning children be modified after separation?
Yes, provisions on custody are reviewable. However, revision requires a concrete reason: a relocation, new school or health needs, a different family organization, or difficulties emerging in the relationship between siblings. The request must clarify why the existing arrangement no longer adequately protects the children and which alternative better responds to their needs.
A firm point for guidance
Siblings are not children to be distributed. Unity between siblings deserves attention because it can offer continuity, support, and a sense of belonging in a delicate family transition. However, it does not prevail over the safety, health, or specific needs of each minor. If you have received a measure or are evaluating an agreement impacting the daily lives of siblings, you can contact me to understand which path is consistent with your concrete situation.