R. M. and the Evasion of Judicial Prescriptions: Commentary on Judgment Cass. Pen., Sec. VI, no. 12976 of 2020

The judgment of the Court of Cassation of February 19, 2020, no. 12976, addresses a topic of great relevance in family law, particularly regarding child custody and the legal consequences of evading judicial prescriptions. In this case, R. M. was convicted for preventing protected meetings between her daughter and father, but the Court raised important doubts about the configurability of the crime of evasion.

The Case of R. M. and the Accusations Made

R. M. was initially convicted for evading a judge's order establishing protected meetings with the minor's father. However, the Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta subsequently declared the defendant not punishable, recognizing the particular insignificance of the act. Subsequently, R. M. appealed to the Court of Cassation, contesting various aspects of the judgment.

• First grievance: rejection of the request for postponement due to the defender's concurrent professional commitment.
• Second grievance: rejection of a request for postponement for health reasons.
• Third grievance: lack of examination of the reasons justifying the defendant's behavior.

In this context, the concept of evasion cannot simply be equated with non-compliance, requiring a more in-depth assessment of the circumstances of the case.

The Decisions of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation deemed the first two grievances regarding the rejection of postponement requests unfounded. However, it accepted the criticisms concerning the failure to consider exculpatory evidence and the confusion between evasion and non-compliance by the Court of Appeal. The Court specified that for the crime of evasion to be constituted, it is necessary for the parent to act in bad faith to evade the obligations imposed by the judge, and not merely to fail to comply.

Conclusions

The judgment of the Court of Cassation represents an important reflection on parents' rights and duties towards minors. The distinction between evasion and non-compliance is crucial for the defense of parents' rights and for the protection of minors' well-being. The Court ordered a new trial, calling for a more careful assessment of the factual circumstances and the evidence presented. This judgment underscores the importance of a rigorous interpretation of norms and legal principles, so that justice can be truly fair and balanced.