Children removed from Australian-British couple living off-grid in Italian forest: are children of the family or are they of the social?

by Laura Catania

Abstract

Inadequate housing conditions, educational and healthcare shortcomings and, above all, the social isolation of minors may justify the suspension of parental responsibility, the removal of children from the family home, and their exclusive placement under the care of Social Services.

The Case

The protagonists of the so-called “house in the woods” media case are an Anglo-Australian couple living in isolation with their three minor children in a farmhouse located in the woods in the province of Chieti. Following the family’s admission to the emergency department due to mushroom poisoning, Social Services became aware of the situation and reported a condition of substantial neglect of the children, caused by unhealthy housing conditions, lack of schooling, and lack of adequate healthcare.

After the report, the Public Prosecutor requested the court to limit the parents’ responsibility, to place the children under the care of Social Services, and to remove them from the family home. The Juvenile Court of L'Aquila granted the request, initially as a precautionary measure, and then with a final order dated November 20, 2025. The parents' lawyers appealed the Court's decision to the Court of Appeal of L'Aquila, which upheld the first instance decision on December 19, 2025.

The Decision

The judge’s decision was based on the reports prepared by Social Services and by the Carabinieri, which revealed parental negligence in several respects.

First, the court identified a risk of harm to the children’s safety and physical integrity due to the uninhabitable condition of the family home, the absence of electricity, water, and heating systems, and the lack of adequate hygiene and health standards.

Moreover, from a healthcare perspective, the parents refused to subject their children to the medical examinations prescribed by the pediatrician, namely a child neuropsychiatric assessment for a comprehensive psychological and behavioral evaluation, as well as blood tests to assess the children’s vaccination-related immune status.

A further critical issue concerned the lack of social interaction. The children were educated directly by their parents outside the traditional school system (so-called homeschooling). However, the parents neither presented to Social Services nor produced before the court the annual declaration from the headteacher of the nearest school certifying their technical or financial capacity to provide proper education. According to the judge, the deprivation of peer interaction during primary school age (approximately 6–11 years old) undermines the child’s right to social development protected by Article 2 of the Italian Constitution.

In addition, the court found that the parents had violated the children’s right to privacy. The facts of the proceedings were widely disseminated through mass media — including the press, digital platforms, television, and social networks — with the disclosure of information capable of identifying the children, both directly (through the publication of images) and indirectly (through personal data and the parents’ place of residence). Through this conduct, the parents instrumentalized their children in order to obtain a favorable outcome in proceedings in which their position was opposed to that of the minors and characterized by a conflict of interest. They sought such an outcome not through legal channels but by attempting to exert pressure on the exercise of judicial functions through public opinion.

For these reasons, the Juvenile Court of L’Aquila suspended the parents’ responsibility, ordered the removal of the three children from their home in the woods, placed them in a foster home in Vasto, and entrusted them exclusively to Social Services, which were tasked with regulating contact between the parents and the children.

Observations

Beyond the critical issues concerning the safety and hygiene conditions of the so-called house in the woods, the decision offers important reflections, particularly regarding the importance of the child’s right to healthy social development, the deprivation of which may justify the suspension of parental responsibility and the placement of minors under the care of Social Services.

Referring to certain cognitive-developmental theories, the Juvenile Court of L’Aquila stated that interaction and comparison with school peers are crucial for children’s learning and educational success, and it described several potential effects that their absence may produce:

  • difficulties in cooperative learning and in developing social and communication skills: the child may struggle to participate effectively in group work and to acquire adaptive social competences (negotiation, respect for rules, and emotional management);
  • problems in emotional regulation and conflict management: the child may find it difficult to handle conflicts, having not learned to negotiate or to understand different perspectives, possibly displaying either social withdrawal or aggressive behavior (including bullying);
  • lack of self-esteem and motivation: rejection or lack of interaction with peers may expose the child to the risk of social isolation, leading to low self-esteem and, in extreme cases, symptoms of social anxiety or depression.

For these reasons, and also in light of the serious and harmful violations of the children’s rights to physical and psychological integrity, material and emotional care, and privacy, both the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal ordered the placement of the children in residential care and the suspension of parental responsibility.