Skip to content

Codice Civile art. 337-quater — Affidamento ad un solo genitore

TL;DR. Italian Codice Civile article 337-quater is the statute governing exclusive custody (affido esclusivo) — the residual exception to the joint-custody-default established by art. 337-ter. First paragraph: the court may order exclusive custody where, with motivated reasoning, it finds that joint custody to the other parent would be contrary to the child's interest. Second paragraph: either parent may apply at any time for exclusive custody; if the court grants it, the rights of the child under art. 337-ter first paragraph (balanced and continuous relationship with each parent) are preserved as far as possible. Critically, if the application is "manifestly unfounded," the court may consider the applicant parent's conduct in determining provisions in the children's interest — a direct anti-strategic-litigation provision. Third paragraph: the sole-custody parent exercises parental responsibility exclusively subject to the court's conditions, but major decisions remain joint, and the non-custodial parent retains the vigilance role over education and may apply to the court if prejudicial decisions are made. The Cassazione (Cass. civ. 31571/2024) has affirmed that "super-exclusive custody" (affidamento super-esclusivo) is a further residual measure applicable only in situations of extreme gravity — where one parent may make all decisions without consulting the other, a tier above ordinary affido esclusivo.

Source: brocardi.it canonical reproduction — Italian state statute. · Fetched: 2026-06-13 · Editorial commentary licence: CC BY 4.0

Full statutory text — verbatim Italian

Art. 337-quater — Affidamento ad un solo genitore e opposizione all'affidamento condiviso

Primo comma. Il giudice può disporre l'affidamento dei figli ad uno solo dei genitori qualora ritenga con provvedimento motivato che l'affidamento all'altro sia contrario all'interesse del minore.

Secondo comma. Ciascuno dei genitori può, in qualsiasi momento, chiedere l'affidamento esclusivo quando sussistono le condizioni indicate al primo comma. Il giudice, se accoglie la domanda, dispone l'affidamento esclusivo al genitore istante, facendo salvi, per quanto possibile, i diritti del minore previsti dal primo comma dell'articolo 337 ter. Se la domanda risulta manifestamente infondata, il giudice può considerare il comportamento del genitore istante ai fini della determinazione dei provvedimenti da adottare nell'interesse dei figli, rimanendo ferma l'applicazione dell'articolo 96 del codice di procedura civile.

Terzo comma. Il genitore cui sono affidati i figli in via esclusiva, salva diversa disposizione del giudice, ha l'esercizio esclusivo della responsabilità genitoriale su di essi; egli deve attenersi alle condizioni determinate dal giudice. Salvo che non sia diversamente stabilito, le decisioni di maggiore interesse per i figli sono adottate da entrambi i genitori. Il genitore cui i figli non sono affidati ha il diritto ed il dovere di vigilare sulla loro istruzione ed educazione e può ricorrere al giudice quando ritenga che siano state assunte decisioni pregiudizievoli al loro interesse.

English translation (working — not an official translation)

Article 337-quater — Custody to one parent and opposition to joint custody

First paragraph. The court may order the custody of the children to one parent only where it finds, by reasoned ruling, that custody to the other parent would be contrary to the interest of the minor.

Second paragraph. Each parent may, at any time, request exclusive custody where the conditions indicated in the first paragraph exist. The court, if it grants the request, orders exclusive custody to the requesting parent, preserving as far as possible the rights of the minor provided for in the first paragraph of article 337-ter. If the request is manifestly unfounded, the court may consider the conduct of the requesting parent for the purposes of determining the provisions to be adopted in the interest of the children, leaving the application of article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure unaffected.

Third paragraph. The parent to whom the children are entrusted exclusively, unless otherwise ordered by the court, holds the exclusive exercise of parental responsibility over them; that parent must comply with the conditions determined by the court. Unless otherwise established, decisions of greater interest for the children shall be taken by both parents. The parent to whom the children are not entrusted has the right and the duty to oversee their instruction and education and may apply to the court where prejudicial decisions to their interest are made.

Why article 337-quater matters for parental-alienation analysis

Article 337-quater is the canonical statutory mechanism for displacing the joint-custody default of art. 337-ter where PA-pattern conduct has rendered joint custody contrary to the child's interest. The provision operates symmetrically — it can be used to grant exclusive custody to either parent, but in PA-context litigation it is most often invoked by the target parent seeking exclusive custody where the other parent has engaged in sustained alienating conduct.

Practice points (PA-context)

  • Reasoned-ruling requirement (provvedimento motivato) — first paragraph: exclusive custody requires explicit reasoning that joint custody would be contrary to the child's interest. Italian Cassazione case-law has consistently held that sustained PA-pattern conduct evidences such contrariety. The leading authorities include Cass. civ. sez. I, 8 aprile 2019, n. 9764 and Cass. civ. sez. I, ord. n. 18828 del 4 luglio 2023 (the latter quoted in the brocardi.it Massime section: "the exclusive custody of the minor to one of the parents is exempt from criticism where — in the established unfitness of the other parent — it reflects the principle of privileging, in the attribution of parental responsibility, that parent who appears most apt to minimise the damages arising from the disintegration of the family unit and to ensure the best possible evolution of the personality of the offspring").

  • Anti-strategic-litigation provision — second paragraph (manifestamente infondata): if a parent files a sole-custody application that is manifestly unfounded, the court may consider that parent's litigation conduct against them in fashioning the orders in the children's interest, alongside the cost-shifting power in art. 96 cpc. This provision is sometimes invoked against alienating parents who file abusive applications seeking to displace the target parent from joint custody.

  • Preservation of art. 337-ter rights — second paragraph: even where exclusive custody is granted, the court must preserve "as far as possible" the rights of the minor under art. 337-ter first paragraph — including the right to a balanced and continuous relationship with each parent. This means even an affido esclusivo order typically preserves substantial contact with the non-custodial parent unless very specific welfare concerns justify restriction.

  • Affidamento super-esclusivo (super-exclusive custody) — Cass. civ. 31571/2024: the Cassazione has recognised a further tier above ordinary affido esclusivo — "super-exclusive" custody where the custodial parent may make all decisions without consulting the other. The Court characterises this as a "residual measure applicable only in situations of extreme gravity that gravely compromise the interest of the minor". Super-exclusive custody is a remedy available in the most egregious PA-context cases where consultation with the alienating parent is itself contrary to the child's welfare.

Connection to ECHR Article 8 + the Italian triptych

The Italian Cassazione's PA-aware jurisprudence under art. 337-quater is in part a response to repeated ECtHR findings against Italy under Article 8 positive obligations — the Italian triptych of Lombardo v Italy (2013), Bondavalli v Italy (2015), Improta v Italy (2017), and Strumia v Italy (2016). Strasbourg held Italy in violation where Italian family courts failed to use their enforcement powers under article 337-quater (and predecessor art. 155-bis) against sustained PA-pattern obstruction. Subsequent Italian Cassazione jurisprudence has tightened domestic enforcement responsiveness.

Cross-references within the AntiAlienate Knowledge Base

Primary source

  • brocardi.it canonical: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-civile/libro-primo/titolo-ix/capo-ii/art337quater.html
  • Statute citation: Codice Civile italiano, art. 337-quater
  • Codification history: Article inserted by art. 55 of D.Lgs. 28 December 2013 n. 154, which reformulated and renumbered the content previously in art. 155-bis c.c. (introduced by Law 54/2006 — the affido condiviso reform of 8 February 2006).
  • Key Cassazione interpretation: Cass. civ. Sez. I, ordinanza n. 31571 del 9 dicembre 2024 (affidamento super-esclusivo as extreme-gravity residual measure); Cass. civ. Sez. I, ordinanza n. 18828 del 4 luglio 2023 (affido esclusivo grounded in established unfitness of other parent); Cass. civ. Sez. I, n. 9764 dell'8 aprile 2019 (PA-pattern conduct as ground for exclusive custody).
  • Status: Italian state statute — public-domain text.

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):