Who owns a child? The Italian case that splits the nation 

Italy is in suspense about this family tragedy. In fact, the country is deeply divided. It is symbolic because it has sparked an intense debate about the nature of parenthood, freedom of education and the role of the state in safeguarding children.     Nathan and Catherine, the parents of three children, decided to live in a farmhouse surrounded by nature. They wanted to lead a simpler life, disconnected from urban utilities, and to educate their children themselves.    However, when their children fell ill with food poisoning from mushrooms, they sought medical help at the local hospital, and their living conditions were reported to the judicial authorities.     The situation escalated when social services intervened, and the Juvenile Court of L’Aquila temporarily suspended their parental rights, ordering that the children be moved to a more ‘civilised’ facility where they could live with their mother under supervision in what were deemed more suitable living conditions.

Imposing standard

This intervention has split public opinion. Some applaud the protection of children’s rights. In contrast, others believe the state is overstepping its limits by imposing a ‘normative’ standard of living that cannot be universal.     Unresolved issues in Italy, as well as the various ideologies behind this intervention, have now come to light. Many find it absurd and excessive to take children away from a family that is free to make its own choices. In contrast, others believe that no family should be free to raise children outside the most common social norms.    At the same time, some have been moved by the idea of a family rejecting modernity and every form of comfort derived from progress in favour of living in close contact with nature.   

    Beyond the legal and social debate, this story exposes a deeper clash of worldviews. These two main approaches (idealising nature and idealising progress) represent worldviews that are not grounded in the Bible.     A family that attributes all evil to progress and believes it can shield itself from it, to live a happy and fulfilling life, has a distorted view of nature. Mushroom poisoning proves that nature is corrupted because of sin.     Progress is not inherently evil. It is part of God’s biblical mandate to develop creation. Its corrupted extremes are the consequence of human sin. However, the idolatry of nature over progress certainly has no saving power. It cannot provide the fullness of life that these parents seek for their children.     Conversely, some people idolise progress, comfort and the idea that they must provide their children with every material possession imaginable to be considered good parents. Some believe that these children’s ability to have a protected and fulfilling future depends on formal schooling and strict conformity to what is considered ‘normal’.

State interference

Moreover, the case also raises the issue of state interference in family life. How far can the state intervene in family choices? How far can families withdraw from what society defines as basic standards?     These are not easy questions to answer. Yet from an evangelical standpoint, it is clear that there are excesses on both sides – excesses rooted in opposing worldviews that cannot be reconciled apart from a biblical interpretation of reality.