This might seem a strange story, but I assure you that it is plural in the sense that there is a unique case, but it is a model to which many lawyers, specialists in family law, you are inspiring.
I was reminded of reading a comment by Anonymous (Mr. Saracino Cosimo I thank and salute cordially), who believed that the "crazy things" were exclusive of civilians.
In fact, these specialists have much to teach law.
The story begins with a standard of separation between spouses before a court.
Both prove to be almost see the poor and given the right to legal aid. At the first hearing the president gives the usual interim custody (shared) on the check and maintenance. Part
the first complaint under Art. 708 Code of Civil Procedure and the Court confirms the presidential action.
At this point the wife turns to the Juvenile Court challenging the right of the husband to see the child, because it is violent and unsuitable to the role of father. The juvenile court, after a brief investigation, decided that both parents are inadequate to the role and entrusts his youngest son for Social Services, while leaving it placed in the marital home awarded to the mother.
complaint of both parents, with different motivations, the Juvenile Court to invoke the revocation of the decree and determine that, depending on the defenses, one or other of the parents was the only one able to occupy the child.
Decree of the Juvenile Court of Appeals for waiver of the contested decree, issued by the court as to subject matter jurisdiction, on the assumption that there was not any of the conditions laid down in Articles. 330, 333 c.c. e, quindi, riconoscimento della validità ed attualità delle decisioni del Presidente del Tribunale ordinario (intanto il procedimento è passato al G.I., al quale le parti rivolgono diverse istanze di modifica delle statuizioni presidenziali).
Ma il difensore della madre ricorre nuovamente al Tribunale minorile dicendo che ci sono altri elementi per escludere il padre da alcun rapporto con il figlio perché non si è sottomesso al percorso di recupero della genitorialità prescritto dal Tribunale minorile.
Altro decreto dello stesso Tribunale che, preso atto che il padre non si è presentato agli appuntamenti con il servizio sociale che doveva recuperarlo al ruolo di padre, reitera l'affidamento the child to social services, placing it back into his mother's home, his father and prescribing a new recovery path of his role. Another appeal to the Court
child of both parents, each to argue that there are no conditions for reliance on social services and claiming the exclusive reliance of the poor child.
New Juvenile Court's decision reaffirms that the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court in that the conditions under Articles. 330 and 333 cc, and therefore new revitalization of the original interim President of the court.
Meanwhile, the ordinary courts, which no one has communicated the decisions of the Juvenile Court, outcome of the proceedings of judicial separation, decides:
As for matters of custody of the child is not competent because he said that the Juvenile Court, nothing decided on this point, the view, however, that for issues relating to the allowance for maintenance of wife and son retains its jurisdiction, other than being of the juvenile court for matters concerning economic actors regularly married, the father imposes a maintenance for his wife and son. Obviously
appeal of both parties, this time before the Court of Appeals for the ordinary, with the following respective positions:
His wife confirmed l'incompetenza del giudice ordinario ed affermarsi quella del giudice minorile per quanto riguarda l'affidamento, ma, sulla base della precedente decisione della Corte minorile, disporre l'affidamente in via esclusiva alla madre; per il marito, riformarsi la decisione impugnata perché, come già stabilito dalla Corte minorile, è competente anche per l'affido del minore il giudice ordinario e, quindi, affidamento congiunto.
Naturalmente entrambi i coniugi impugnano, con opposte motivazioni, la decisione del Tribunale sul quantum degli assegni.
La decisione della Corte è attesa tra qualche giorno.
Ma, intanto, mi chiedo: questi coniugi, ufficialmente poveri, quanti denari hanno sottratto the state budget for defense and repeated questionable benefit and how their only son?