The mother, who had the child with assisted reproduction abroad from an anonymous donor, had opposed the recognition. The magistrates: “Occasional meetings are not enough. There is no proof of assumption of parental responsibility”
It is not enough to support your partner in planning motherhood in order to become a ‘social or intentional parent’. This was established by civil court of Milan rejecting the request of a man who asked for recognition of the child that his ex-partner had had by resorting to medically assisted procreation abroad from an anonymous donor. A choice that the woman, defended by lawyers Irma Conti And Ilaria Guarciariello, had claimed as her own and exclusive to build a single-parent family in total autonomy, underlining how, even after the birth of the child, the relationship with her partner had continued largely at a distance. And that, according to the woman, even if there had been moments of sharing between the man and the child “it had only been 48 days with meetings of even just a quarter of an hour” compared to the four years of small.
According to the judges, ”there was no definitive proof that the appellant had assumed a paternal role in the minor’s life, through the exercise of rights and duties aimed at child’s growth and to the development of his personality, with qualified attendance in which the minor could have identified the subject as a paternal figure, enjoying his care, moral and material assistance, instruction and education”. The Milanese Court in fact considered it “undisputed that the man who partially supported her partner in her maternity plan” by accompanying her abroad for the first time and “sometimes encouraged her with telephone messages, is remained completely foreign.”
As proof, the sentence reports how the man did not sign the documentation at the start of the fertilization process, from which the indication of the woman as “single”. A circumstance, which according to the judges, constitutes certain proof of the partner’s lack of will to give birth, remaining a “mere spectator” of the procreative project chosen and initiated by the partner. The court therefore recognized the mother’s right to build a single-parent family, despite the fact that the couple lived together in the period before the pregnancy and the relationship ended in summer 2020, after the birth of the minor, when the child was two years old.
THE Milanese judges they also rejected the request, formulated subordinately by the man, for recognition of the role of social parent. In fact, for the court, photos together and affectionate messages are not enough to demonstrate the assumption of parental responsibility towards the minor, so much so as to make him identify the adult as a paternal figure. According to the judges, what is needed is an assumption of responsibility, sharing of decisions with the other parent, respecting the two-parenthood, cohabitation or in any case physical closeness with the minor, the sharing of expenses for his growth and the support provided to the child. minor in all fields.
”If it is true that there are messages exchanged between the parties which show affection towards the little one and if they give an account of moments spent together, as well as some photos – we read in the sentence of the ninth civil section of the court of Milan – they certainly do not provide the proof of assumption of parental responsibility towards the minor, in the sense of that bundle of rights/duties that weigh on the parent aimed at the growth of the child and the development of his personality in compliance with his natural inclinations and aspirations and with qualified attendance in ‘area in which the minor has been able to identify with the paternal figure and enjoy the care, moral and material assistance, instruction and education” from the man.
Also in this case therefore for the judges ”it is the interest of the minor that must be placed at the centre” and since there were only ”between the child and the mother’s ex-partner”occasional and intermittent meetings and some video calls, nothing similar to a relationship between a child and an adult who has assumed and carried out a parental role over time has been deduced and proven in the present judgment. Therefore – concludes the sentence – no conduct prejudicial to the child can be found in the mother’s decision to interrupt the minor’s contacts with her ex. “The ruling is important because it recognizes the woman’s right to have a child with the Pma without anyone claiming the role of father when it was not a common project,” the lawyer underlines to Adnkronos Irma Conti.