The voice of the children in court: from equidistance to resist/refuse dynamic in the parental conflict

Author/s Silvia Mazzoni
Publishing Year 2021 Issue 2020/124
Language Italian Pages 23 P. 194-216 File size 132 KB
DOI 10.3280/TF2020-124010
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The article describes the experience of listening to children by the Judge - together with the Psychologist - in the judicial proceedings of separation and divorce. It is a procedure consistent with international conventions for the rights of children and adolescents, but it can be considered as an important opportunity for all adults - parents, lawyers and judges - to take into account the voice of children and to converge towards their developmental goals. After reviewing some theoretical principles that make it possible to understand the position of children with respect to parental conflict, the article describes the results of an empirical survey that allowed to detect a high percentage of children who - despite parents’ legal disputes - express the need to maintain an equidistant relationship that guarantees their emotional and social security. Nevertheless, the examples that are described offer a reflection on the risk that the children of divorce find themselves having to propose a role reversal for a long time with respect to adults who do not find a way out of the conflict.

Keywords: Children of divorce, listening to the minor, the best interests of the child.

  1. AGIA (2018). La Carta dei Diritti dei Figli nella Separazione dei genitori. --
  2. Ammaniti M., Gallese V. (2014). La nascita dell’intersoggettività. Lo sviluppo del Sé tra psicodinamica e neurobiologia. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
  3. Austin W.G., Fieldstone L., Pruett M.C. (2013). Bench book for assessing parental gatekeeping in parenting disputes: Understanding the dynamics of gate closing and opening for the best interests of children. Journal of Child Custody, 10: 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2013.77869
  4. Bronfenbrenner U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press (trad. it.: Ecologia dello sviluppo umano. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2002).
  5. Convenzione internazionale sui diritti dell’infanzia e dell’adolescenza (2019). -- Testo disponibile al sito:
  6. Convenzione europea sull’esercizio dei diritti dei minori (2000). -- Testo disponibile al sito:, 20
  7. Cummings E.M., Davies P.T. (2011). Marital conflict ancd children: An emotional security perspective. New York: Guilford Press (trad. it.: Il conflitto coniugale e i figli. La prospettiva della sicurezza emotiva. Roma: Borla, 2013).
  8. D’Alessio M., De Stasio S. (2007). Psicologia e processi educativi. Sviluppo, apprendimento e relazioni in età scolare. Roma: Carocci.
  9. Favez N., Lopes F., Bernard M., Frascarolo F., Lavanchy Scaiola C., Corboz-Warnery A., Fivaz-Depeursinge E. (2012). The development of family alliance from pregnancy to toddlerhood and child outcomes at 5 years. Family Process, 51: 542-556.
  10. Fivaz-Depeursinge E., Lavanchy-Scaiola C., Favez N. (2010). The young infant’s triangular communication in the family: Access to threesome intersubjectivity? Conceptual considerations and case illustrations. Psycho-Analytic Dialogues: The International Journal of Relational Perspectives, 20: 125-140. DOI: 10.1080/1048188100371621
  11. Fivaz-Depeursinge E., Philipp D.A. (2015). The Baby and the Couple. Understanding and treating young families. New York: Routledge (trad. it.: Il bambino e la coppia. Comprendere e trattare le famiglie con bambini in età prescolare. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2015).
  12. Kelly J.B., Johnston J.R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39: 249-266.
  13. Kerig P.K. (2005). Implication of parent-child boundary dissolution for development psychopathology. Who is the parent and who is the child? New York: Routledge.
  14. Kerig P.K., Lindahal K.M. (2001). Family Observational Coding Systems. Resources for systemic research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum (trad. it.: Sistemi di codifica per l’osservazione delle relazioni familiari. Milano: FrancoAngeli).
  15. Koren-Karie N., Oppenheim D. (2018). Parental insightfulness: restrospect and prospect. Attachment & Human Development, 20-3: 223-236. DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2018.144674
  16. Lichtenberg J.D., Lachmann F.M., Fossage J.L. (2011). Psychoanalisis and Motivational Systems. A New Look. New York: Routledge (trad. it.: I sistemi motivazionali. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2012).
  17. Malagoli Togliatti M., Lubrano Lavadera A. (2011). Bambini in tribunale. L’ascolto dei figli “contesi”. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
  18. Mc Connel M.C., Kerig P.K. (2002). Assessing Coparenting in Families of School-Age Children: Validation of the Coparenting and Family Rating System. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34: 44-58.
  19. McHale J., Kuersten-Hogan R., Lauretti A. (2001) Evaluating Coparenting and Family-Level Dynamics During Infancy and Early Childhood: the Coparenting and Family Rating System. In: Kerig P., Lindahal K. (2001), Family observational coding sysrtems: resources for systemic research. New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 151-170.
  20. McHale J.P. (2007). Charting the Bumpty Road of Coparenthood: Understanding the Challenges of Family Life. Washington, DC: Zero to Three (trad. it.: La sfida della cogenitorialità. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2010).
  21. Minuchin S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (trad. it.: Famiglie e terapia della famiglia. Roma: Astrolabio, 1978).
  22. Peris T.S., Emery R.E (2005). Redefining the parent-Child relationship Following Divorce: Examining the Risk for Boundary Dissolution. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 4: 169-189.
  23. Sander L. (2007). Sistemi viventi. L’emergere della persona attraverso l’evoluzione della consapevolezza. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
  24. Williamson D.S. (1991). The intimacy paradox. Personal Authority in the Family System. New York: Guilford Press.
  25. Zero to Three (2016). DC:0-5™: Diagnostic classification of mental health and developmental disorders of infancy and early childhood. Washington, DC: Zero to Three.

Silvia Mazzoni, La voce dei figli in tribunale: dall’equidistanza nel conflitto alla dinamica di resistenza e rifiuto verso un genitore in "TERAPIA FAMILIARE" 124/2020, pp 194-216, DOI: 10.3280/TF2020-124010