Child entrusted to the father and separation attributed to the mother due to defamatory conduct towards the other parent

In judgment No. 23253/2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) confirmed that a mother's departure from the matrimonial home, motivated by her belief, later proven unfounded, that the father had sexually abused their child, constituted grounds for attributing the separation to her. The Court also upheld the exclusive custody of the child being granted to the father.

Unfounded allegations of abuse and departure from the matrimonial home

The case arose from judicial separation proceedings between spouses, in which the Court of Livorno attributed the separation to the wife and granted exclusive custody of the minor child to the father, while providing for supervised visitation between the mother and the child.

The attribution of the separation was based on the wife's departure from the matrimonial home during the marriage without a justification deemed legally sufficient. The woman claimed that she had left because she believed her husband had sexually abused their child. However, these allegations were not substantiated in either the criminal proceedings or the civil proceedings.

As regards custody, the Court found that the mother's conduct, characterized by her persistent belief in the alleged abuse despite the lack of supporting evidence, reflected an obsessive and pathological attitude. Such conduct was considered capable of exposing the child to psychological pressure, jeopardizing his healthy development and gradually distancing him from his father.

The Florence Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment, prompting the mother to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Why did the mother's conduct justify exclusive custody to the father?

The Supreme Court confirmed the decisions of the lower courts both with regard to custody and the attribution of the separation.

Regarding custody, the Court held that placing the child with the father was justified by the mother's conduct, which, according to the findings made during the proceedings, was likely to harm the child's emotional and psychological well-being. Particular significance was attached to the mother's false accusations that the father had sexually abused the child. According to the Court, her conduct was obsessive in nature, as she interpreted ordinary childhood behaviors as pathological or sexualized signs. This created a concrete risk to the child's development and threatened to alienate the child from the father.

The Supreme Court also upheld the attribution of the separation to the wife. Her departure from the matrimonial home lacked a valid justification because the reasons she relied upon, namely the alleged sexual abuse committed by her husband against the child, proved to be unfounded. The Court held that this conduct had seriously affected the marital relationship and had been a determining factor in the breakdown of the marriage, thereby justifying the attribution of the separation to her.

Protecting the child beyond parental conflict

This judgment is particularly significant from the perspective of safeguarding the best interests of the child. It emphasizes that, in custody decisions, the decisive factor must be the actual impact of each parent's conduct on the child's physical and psychological well-being.

Exclusive custody was not justified merely by the existence of conflict between the parents. Rather, it was based on the assessment that one parent's specific conduct was capable of causing harm to the child's healthy development. In this case, such harm was identified in the psychological pressure exerted upon the child and in the risk of undermining the child's relationship with his father.

Particularly relevant was the fact that the mother's allegations against the father were never substantiated in either the criminal or the civil proceedings. The persistence of those allegations, together with the obsessive nature attributed to the mother's behavior, was not regarded as a mere manifestation of parental conflict, but rather as conduct concretely capable of negatively affecting the child's emotional balance.

The ruling is also noteworthy for clarifying the grounds on which separation may be attributed to one spouse. While leaving the matrimonial home does not automatically lead to a finding of fault, it may become relevant where the departure is unjustified and has significantly contributed to the breakdown of the marital relationship. In the present case, the unfounded nature of the reasons advanced by the wife excluded any justification for her departure, allowing the Court to identify her conduct as the cause of the matrimonial crisis.

The judgment therefore confirms an approach based on the concrete assessment of parental conduct and its effects on the child, reaffirming the centrality of the child's best interests both in custody matters and in decisions concerning the exercise of parental responsibility.