After all, the law establishing separation and divorce dates back to 1970, and therefore it should not surprise us to put our hands in it. But the progressive interventions made were fundamentally concentrated on a progressive deregulation, shortening times, simplifying procedures, with little attention to relational suffering and to the many critical issues. Also an important intervention, the law 54 of 2006, which wanted to introduce a greater balance between spouses in the exercise of parenting, through the priority given to shared custody, after more than ten years of application already shows many cracks, lacking dramatically the goal : in fact today the overwhelming majority of assignments, even of many formally "shared", concern mothers, whilethere are really too many separated fathers kept away from their children. On the other hand, on the other hand, there are frequent reports of unpaid checks and of separate mothers with their children who "find it hard to get to the end of the month". So staying still can not be: action must be taken.
The agenda of the Senate Justice Commission is already very crowded, and only on the subject of separation at least eight bills have already been filed. Among these, however, only two intervene in an organic way (the aforementioned Ddl Pillon and that of Gallone and others, of Forza Italy), while the other six propose changes on specific points – important, but very limited (greater penalties for those who do not pay the allowance, the grandparents' right to the relationship with the grandchildren after the separation, etc.).
Attention, however, has rightfully remained focused on the Bill Pillon, being the proposal of a member of the Presidency of the Justice Committee, and being promoted by a majority political force (Lega Nord), but already with the consent (the signature) also of different senators of the 5 Star Movement. It is therefore a proposal that has – reasonably – a privileged path in the agenda of the Commission's work , and which has already gained a very strong, often very pungent attention, on all media and by the various subjects involved on the subject. We know that very often the bills passing through the commissions are modifiedin a very significant way, and therefore the discussion now underway will only help to improve the text in its final version. This Bill, however, because it is organic, has some qualifying points, on which it is convenient to express a first evaluation.
- Research and promotion of "bigholder". It is the critical point of Law 54/2006, which also had it as its objective. The Bill Pillon tries to offer equal access to children for both parents, with binding rules – almost mathematics – of parity. However, this point can easily become "attempts to guarantee the right of every parent to the child" , shifting the focus from the interest of the minor, which must remain prevalent, to that, although legitimate and pertinent, of the non-custodial parent (usually the father ). Here the ridge is thin, and if it is true that many fathers are now deprived of access to their children, the theme is to preserve the "superior interest of the child" at the center.. Perhaps the assumed compulsory, Solomonic and numerical equality (two rooms, two houses, at least twelve days here and / or beyond) is not the best solution.
- Parity between spouses can not automatically determine a double residence of the children, an equal management of the times, the pre-set counts of the number of days. The child also lives on the stability of his social relationships, school friendships, neighborhood, his own "safe nest" (a bedroom, his own objects …), and oblige by law the children to a periodic commuting between the two parents It seems really prudent. Better to return to "case by case" assessments by the judge, if the parents do not find a balanced agreement, rather than rely on strict rules of a law that becomes so "blind".
- Mandatory family mediation: helping a couple to manage their relations during the separation before the judge's "saber" intervenes is certainly fundamental. After all, mediation is a well-established tool, and too many criticisms that have appeared in these days seem a little too interested; a good family mediation is certainly useful, and just as surely could damage some professional that instead in feeding the conflicts can find better parcels and greater protagonism. Many lawyers are valuable in managing the conflicts between spouses in a non-destructive way, but we are sure that all the matrimonialists are? The theme remains the knot, dramatic, of couples already defined as "non-mediable", where the conflict is now no longer contained. And for them we can not but return to the judgments and mandatory indications (but inevitably on a case-by-case basis, once again) of the courts and judges. But making an attempt to support outside and before the court with the mediation may be worth …