Skip to content

Solarino v. Italy — ECHR (2017), App. no. 76171/13

TL;DR. Courts may not rubber-stamp an alienated child's stated refusal to see a parent without examining the refusal's origin. Direct authority for challenging supervised-contact orders that perpetuate a coached refusal, and for refusal-protocol motions in alienation cases. The appellate weapon when your supervised order was triggered by the child's stated preference rather than by a finding of danger.

Maintained by Alan Markson · Last reviewed: 2026-05-15 · License: CC BY 4.0

Citation

Solarino v. Italy, App. no. 76171/13, ECHR (First Section), Judgment of 9 September 2017.

Court

European Court of Human Rights, First Section, Strasbourg.

Facts

The applicant father's contact with his daughter had been restricted based on the child's stated refusal to see him. Italian courts accepted the child's statement at face value, without independent expert assessment of whether the refusal originated in the child's authentic experience of the father — or in coaching by the mother. The father argued the child's refusal had been engineered.

Holding

Italy violated Article 8 ECHR. The Court held that domestic courts may not accept a child's stated refusal to see a parent without examining the refusal's origin, particularly where there are reasonable grounds to suspect parental alienation. Accepting the surface stated preference, without independent expert assessment, is itself a procedural failure that engages state responsibility.

Significance for parental alienation

This is the direct ECHR authority for the principle that:

  1. Supervised-contact orders premised solely on a child's stated refusal — without independent expert assessment of the refusal's origin — may themselves violate Article 8.
  2. Targeted parents have a positive right to demand that the court examine whether the refusal is authentic or coached.
  3. Refusal-protocols in PA cases must include expert assessment, not deference to the surface preference.

Practical use in court filings

If your supervised-contact or restricted-contact order was triggered by your child's stated preference — and the court did not independently assess the origin of that preference — Solarino is your appellate weapon. Sample motion language:

Per Solarino v. Italy (ECHR 2017, App. no. 76171/13), this Court may not accept the child's stated refusal as the basis for restricted contact without independent expert assessment of the refusal's origin. Where reasonable grounds exist to suspect parental alienation — as documented in [Exhibits X–Y] — the failure to conduct such an assessment is itself a procedural defect engaging Article 8.

Cites

  • Bondavalli v. Italy (ECHR 2015) — state's positive obligation framework
  • Earlier child-voice cases: Sahin v. Germany (2003 GC), Sommerfeld v. Germany (2003 GC)

Cited by

  • UK Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) — alignment of English law with ECHR refusal-doctrine
  • Subsequent Italian Cour de cassation cases (research lead — verify)
# Post
18 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/refusal-protocols
33 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/when-a-child-refuses-contact
55 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/recognizing-parental-alienation-key-signs
60 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/do-supervised-visits-help-or-hurt
61 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/supervised-visits-belgium
13 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/echr-article-8-eu-legal-weapon
  • HUDOC: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-176856

Disclaimer

Wiki entry, not legal advice. Verify HUDOC text before citing.

CC BY 4.0 · antialienate.com