They don’t have to follow the rules from the casa family but they should keep the same habitslike when they were together in the casa In the bosco. They have to get upalba and go to sleep by 6pm, would be the pretext of mother Catherine, who visits the three children separated from her and her husband Nathan every day. This is one of the many aspects that would not speak in favor of the parents’ desire to “cooperation stably“with the operators in the interest of the children. And it is one of the reasons that led to the Juvenile Court of L’Aquila to establish that, for the moment, the children of the family that lived isolated in the Palmoli woods, in the province of Chieti, they will remain still in the family home.
The required expertise
They won’t return with their parents, one will be needed first “personological and psycho-diagnostic” expertise about the 45-year-old Australian Catherine Birmingham and on the 51-year-old Briton Nathan Trevallion. The Court appointed an official technical consultant, Simona Ceccoli, to carry out the investigation on the parents. The father will still be able to meet his children and wife in the family home day Of Natalegiven that one is scheduled for Thursday, as per the provisions of the judiciary visit. But he won’t be able to have lunch with his children: according to what the head of the minors service of the protected facility claims, the internal regulations do not provide for it. The father will only be able to meet his children from 10am to 12.30pm. Meanwhile, the family’s lawyers define the reconstructions of recent days as “ridiculous”.
Evaluate parenting skills and competences
It was for the couple parental responsibility suspended on the 3 children, two 6-year-old twins and an 8-year-old girl, removed from the farmhouse without electricity, toilets and heating. The children are hosted by November 20th in a family home in the Vastese area, also in the province of Chietiand for the moment they remain in the structure. The appraisal ordered by the L’Aquila college aims to evaluate capacity e skills parental. The court, presided over by judge Cecilia Angrisano, ordered that a psycho-diagnostic investigation also be carried out on the 3 minor children. The ordinance allocates 120 days to respond to the questions.
The case
The decision to keep the children in the family home stems from reasons that are not only those that led to their removal, ordered on November 13th and notified on the 20th. It all started with the reporting of the health services to the social services after an iMushroom poisoning. The parents were supported by assistants socialbut they would have shown themselves contrary to collaborate and even after the precautionary hearing they no longer wanted to have meetings and interviews. They would show distrusteven towards defenders. The first lawyer, Giovanni Angelucci, resigned the mandate.
“Danger of harming the right to social life”
Among the elements that weigh there is also the fact that parents have gone so far as to ask for the pediatrician’s checks 50mila euro for each child, only to give consent for blood chemistry and immune status tests. The Juvenile Court reiterated that it had assessed the “danger of harming the right to social life” of the little ones, while a violation of the right toinstructionin particular of the eldest daughter, would have occurred only when the children arrived in the family home in Vasto, when the social services would have noticed some problems in the preparation and “embarrassment e distrust” compared to their peers.
The “rigidity of parents”
Even after the removal, the parents’ conduct showed a “remarkable rigidity“, dependent on the values they believe in and “onlack of negotiation skills“, is underlined in the order. The mother would also have expected the children, whom she visits every day, to maintain habits and schedules different from the rules of the family home. The documentation relating to the authorizations for modifications to the old farmhouse and the new home donated to the couple would remain an uncertain destination for a few months.
The lawyers’ response
The parents’ lawyers, Danila Solinas and Marco Femminella, underlined that the order precedes the integration of documents. In particular, they define as “ridiculous” the reconstructions, among many, “of phantom e non-existent donkey hair toothbrushes, illnesses serious May curate or rather the lack Of vaccines“. The defense points out that it has deposited “copious and timely documentation accompanied by specific allegations which they refute the assumption that minors would not have contacts with their peers and, last but not least, documentation photographic which portrays the children in every recreational or ordinary occasion in contact with other children, and not only, towards whom they did not show any discomfort, just as they did not show it in the family home”. Therefore, “the reported reluctance and the inferred isolation are denied. Of course, we cannot help but ask ourselves who it is convenient to feed this grotesque representation. We are certain that the specific allegations that we have submitted to the court, which the previous order evidently did not take into account, will be duly and promptly evaluated”, say the lawyers, “just as we are certain that the ‘urgency to take action’ envisaged by the law will be adequately evaluated, when the continuation of the placement in the structure will have to be re-evaluated, in hopefully rapid times”.
