Juvenile Court Drama: A Family Saga in Trieste
Well, grab your popcorn, folks! Because in the quaint Italian town of Trieste, we have a real-life courtroom saga unfolding, complete with tension, drama, and just a sprinkle of absurdity that would leave even the best sitcoms scratching their heads. A mother, instantly transformed into a human juggling act of homelessness and anguish, faces eviction from her marital home — all while her almost three-year-old child is living the high life with dad and grandma in another municipality. If this isn’t the definition of family fun, I don’t know what is!
The Fury Unleashed
It all began around two years ago, when the couple’s duck pond went from serene waters to a tempest of legal battles and accusations. We’re talking about passionate arguments, assaults that would make a season finale feel inadequate, and even a hospital trip — with the partners pointing fingers like they had grenade launchers. The woman claims self-defense after giving dad a lip pierce during a ruckus, which escalated so quickly even the emergency room doctors probably needed a coffee afterward to settle their nerves.
So, of course, the smart move here was to let the courts decide who gets the kiddo! A real touch of brilliance. The local juvenile court took the reins, resulting in an order to place mother and child in a community setting for some quality control checks. But hold on! With no available spots, they thought, “Why not send the baby off with dad instead?” That’s right — mom, who might still have been breastfeeding her little bundle of joy, was left in the marital home while dad scooped up junior and hightailed it to his parents — presumably to a less chaotic world where grandparent babysitting reigns supreme.
The Great Separation
Fast forward to January 2024, and the great separation begins. The court gives dad the golden ticket of sole custody — an absolute win for him, but a crushing blow for mom, who has to pack her bags. Let’s not forget that this eviction was set into motion on October 16th like a ticking time bomb, complete with police escorts and locksmiths ready to pop locks like a pro locksmithing Christmas special. Talk about making an exit! And for what, you ask? Well, to make way for the upcoming court appeal, depending on how the cookie crumbles.
But hey, let’s take a step back — it appears we’re juggling declarations of violence like we’re at the circus! The father’s lawyer, Simona Stefanutto, waved the “legality is gender-neutral” flag, emphasizing that all those pesky orders instructing the mother to leave the premises are rooted in solid evidence of prior violence. Four different court rulings make for a fierce case — because what could be more entertaining than watching lawyers play hopscotch over documented evidence?
On the flip side of the coin, we have Giovanna Augusta de’Manzano, the mother’s lawyer, who argues that leaving a mother in such a state of despair is not just a bad move, but a legal blunder. She’s all about protecting the child’s emotional well-being — which, let’s be honest, probably feels like a blender at full speed right now! So what we have here is a real tug of war, wrapped in a legal bow, fascinated by the fragility of childhood while trying to whip up some good old-fashioned justice.
In Conclusion
So, as the drama unfolds in the court of public opinion, one can’t help but wonder: Who actually wins in this battle of the courts? A mother, temporarily couch surfing at her lawyer’s house, or a father, basking in the glory of newfound custody? For now, they’re both tied to a convoluted legal process that seems far from resolved. In the end, perhaps the real question is whether a judicial system can truly grasp the nuances of family ties, especially when tensions run as high as a reality show finale. Keep your eyes peeled for the next episode of “Family Court: The Italian Edition!”
TRIESTE – A mother of an almost three-year-old child is evicted from her marital home, owned by her ex-husband, and is temporarily hosted by her lawyer. The Juvenile Court had in fact ordered the removal of the woman from the aforementioned house over a year ago and placed the child with the father, who had temporarily moved with his parents to another municipality. Now the father, defended by the lawyer Simona Stefanutto of the Udine Bar, will be able to return with his son to the house he owns, while for the woman, currently homeless and without work, the request for an Ater house was rejected. Still troubled family stories, which end up requiring the intervention of the courts and social workers. A complex story full of nuances, which require reconstruction from the beginning.
La lite furious
The legal case began about two years ago with the deterioration of the two’s relationship, until the arguments began. In one situation the woman injures the man on the lip (claiming to have defended herself from an attack by her partner), a fact which is reported by the emergency room doctors. Both of them, even later, filed mutual accusations of violence before the judge. After the episode, the father took legal action and the Trieste juvenile court intervened, ordering the placement of mother and child (he was about a year old at the time) in a community for control purposes. Since there are no places available for both of them in a facility, the Court, in order to place only the minor in a community, revokes the previous provision and orders the primary placement of the child with the father, who takes him to his parents’ home in another common, leaving the woman (who, according to what we learn, was still breastfeeding the child), in the marital home. Thus began the attended visits between mother and son. The juvenile court, after a year of investigation, finds that both parents, taken individually, behave appropriately with the child, but their relationship is extremely conflictual.
The separation
The two thus decided to formally separate and, in January 2024, the proceedings began at the Court of Gorizia, where the judge granted sole custody to the father in provisional measures, reduced the visits, as already extended by the Social Services, of the child with his mother and assigns the house to the man, with the woman being forced to leave. The decree was challenged in the Court of Appeal by the lady’s lawyer, Giovanna Augusta de’Manzano. In August, the Board accepted the request and temporarily suspended the exclusive custody of the father, regulating the right of access to the mother. The eviction begins on October 16th with the police, locksmith and ambulance, before the appeal hearing, set for October 22nd. On this occasion the Court of Appeal of Trieste has reserved its decision and will give its ruling in the next few days. Meanwhile, the woman, who worked as a manager in Russia, is now out of work and is staying at her defender’s house.
“Legality is not a question of gender”, comments the father’s lawyer, Simona Stefanutto, who underlines how the first court order arrived following “documentary and testimonial evidence of violence against the husband”, but the order removal “has never been respected”, and this “despite the fact that social services have been offering her emergency replacement accommodation for a year and a half (a circumstance which the other party claims is not true, ed.)”. The lawyer also points out that “four different rulings between the Juvenile Court, the Ordinary Court and the Court of Appeal say that this lady must leave the house”.
Thus the lawyer de’ Manzano: “Leaving a mother in a state of such desperate fragility, who now has no possibility of having suitable accommodation and who does not present any parental critical issues, is a decision that does not only traumatize the minor, who has lost – for the second time – his daily interaction with his parent in environments known to him and safe, but also undermines the fundamental national and supranational legal principles that protect childhood. I therefore personally distance myself – and my action is proof of this – from that decision which will now be up to our Court of Appeal, always attentive and balanced in terms of family law, to re-evaluate”.
