Disputed Children
By: Giorgio Provinciali
Live from Ukraine
Kyiv — In recent hours, the Ukrainian Parliament’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets, has brought to public attention a legal dispute arising from an Italian court’s authorization of the adoption of a Ukrainian minor who was evacuated to Lecce in 2022. The child’s mother is alive and has not lost parental rights, while the child’s father is missing in action.
If the facts reported by the Ukrainian Ombudsman are accurate, the issue is extremely serious. Adoption is a definitive measure that severs and replaces family ties. This is precisely why the Hague Conference (HCCH) has been categorical: in the event of armed conflict, protection measures other than adoption must be prioritized because minors separated from their families cannot be presumed to be orphans or automatically in need of adoption. Until the fate of their parents or close relatives is clarified, they must still be considered part of their family. The Council of Europe is even more explicit: adoption should not be considered when there is a reasonable hope of reunification or when it is contrary to the wishes of the child or the parents. The UN Guidelines on Alternative Care for Children reiterate that no actions (adoption, name change, or relocation far from the place of origin) that could hinder future family reintegration should be taken until all efforts to achieve a solution have been exhausted. The Ukrainian moratorium on intercountry adoptions is a protective measure designed to prevent the forced relocation of children from becoming a means of permanently altering their personal status. The Council of Europe recallsthat, under Ukrainian law, only children with orphan status or whose parents have been deprived of parental rights are adoptable, and that martial law prohibits foreign citizens from registering as prospective adoptive parents for up to three months after its termination, except for limited exceptions.
Italian law is also not neutral. Law №184/1983 states in Article 1: 1. The right of the minor to grow up in his or her own family; Article 8 definesadoptability as a situation of abandonment, provided that the lack of care is not due to temporary force majeure; Article 36 requires that foreign minors be certified as abandoned or that their biological parents consent. Even the Constitutional Court’s ruling no. 33/2025 — which opened international adoption to individuals — reaffirmed that these minors remain in a situation of abandonment. In 2022, through the Commission for International Adoptions, Italy also suspended the assumption of new assignments to Ukraine and the Russian Federation due to the ongoing emergency.
Here, the most delicate transnational issue arises: habitual residence and, consequently, jurisdiction.
Council of Europe Resolution 2529/2024 maintains that Ukrainian minors abroad should be considered present in host countries only for the purposes of temporary protection. Therefore, Article 6 of the 1996 Hague Convention would not be applicable, while Article 5 would make it appropriate to maintain the jurisdictional center in Ukraine.
The European e-Justice portal offers a contrary interpretation: for internationally displaced minors from third countries, Article 6, paragraph 1 of the 1996 Hague Convention may confer jurisdiction on the host state. However, even under this interpretation, habitual residence is not merely a formal concept or a legal timetable: it is a factual notion, linked to the child’s actual center of life, the quality and stability of their placement, and the reasons for their stay.
Wartime evacuation is not comparable to voluntary migration, and the mere passage of time should not result in definitive stabilization that justifies severing filiation.
When dealing with minors displaced by war, the law should favor reversible solutions: foster care, guardianship, and protective placement.
Not the most irreversible of all.
It should also be noted that the 1996 Hague Convention can guide transnational protection, parental responsibility, and cooperation between authorities, but it cannot provide legal protection for adoption. Article 4 expressly excludes adoption from its scope, including preparatory measures. Moreover, Italian case law has already given full weight to Ukrainian protection orders: in ruling no. 17603/2023, the Court of Cassation declaredthe appointment of a guardian by the Consul General of Ukraine in Naples effective in Italy. Article 23 of the same Convention provides for the automatic recognition of orders issued by another contracting state.
The compatibility of the decision with Italian law and European standards appears seriously questionable.
The Strasbourg Court has repeatedly censured states for the adoption or termination of family ties decided without the parents’ actual participation. In Pontes v. Portugal, it found a lack of sufficient reasons and regular contact; in A.K. and L. v. Croatia, because the child was placed for adoption without the mother’s knowledge or participation; and in Zhou v. Italy, for a lack of adequate efforts before considering the termination of family ties.
According to Lubinets, similar risks would affect 82 other Ukrainian minors.
If the formulation he cited regarding the mere “remote presence” of the parents truly reflected the treatment reserved for family participation in the Lecce case, the risk to the ECHR would be very serious.
If confirmed as challenged, the case would call into question not only the relationship between Italy and Ukraine but also the Italian judicial system’s consistency with the principles it claims to uphold.
Protecting a child evacuated from war doesn’t mean exploiting their vulnerability to make their separation from their family irreversible.
It means resisting the temptation to call “stability” what began as trauma and “the child’s best interests” what could be seen as a surrender of rights in the face of a fait accompli.
In 1.519 days of war, we recorded over 250 videos from ground zero and wrote more than 1,500 articles.
We are doing our best to provide genuine, first-hand reports from zones where almost no press dares to go. This means living in a kill zone constantly. We take the risk, but without your invaluable support, our voices would remain unheard and silent. Without brave people sharing our articles from afar, they would remain unread. Our reports would go unseen, and our efforts would be lost. There’s still a lot of work to do here, as the people around us are also in no better situation.
We’re renewing our fundraising campaign and thanking everyone who joins us in helping to restore what Russia is destroying. Moving forward with only a small reimbursement for each article from a brave newspaper that believes in us is extremely challenging. That’s why we are grateful to all the kind people who support us and trust in our mission.
Even a small donation helps.
We’ll keep you updated on developments.
Thank you all, dear friends
被爭議的兒童
作者：Giorgio Provinciali
翻譯：旺財球球
烏克蘭前線報道
基輔 —— 近日，烏克蘭議會人權專員德米特羅·盧比涅茨向公眾披露了一起法律爭議：意大利一家法院批準收養一名在2022年被撤離至萊切的烏克蘭未成年人。該兒童的母親在世且未被剝奪監護權，而孩子的父親（在戰場）失蹤。
（圖：我與Alla在烏克蘭頓涅茨克州一處荒廢的兒童遊樂場報道——版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
如果烏克蘭人權專員所報道的事實屬實，問題極其嚴重。收養是一項終局性措施，會切斷並取代原有的家庭關係。正因如此，《海牙國際私法會議》早已明確：在武裝衝突情況下，應優先采取除收養之外的保護措施，因為與家庭分離的未成年人不能被推定為孤兒或當然被視為需要被收養。在父母或近親的命運尚未明朗之前，他們仍應被視為家庭的一部分。歐洲委員會更為明確：在存在家庭重新團聚的合理希望，或與兒童或父母意願相悖時，不應考慮收養。聯合國《兒童替代性照護指南》重申，在所有促成家庭 重聚的努力未窮盡前，不應采取任何可能妨礙未來家庭重歸的行為，如收養、改名或遠離原籍地的搬遷。烏克蘭對跨國收養的暫停令是一項保護性措施，旨在防止以強製轉移兒童為手段永久改變其個人法律身份。歐洲委員會提醒，根據烏克蘭法律，僅具孤兒身份或父母被剝奪監護權的兒童可被收養，並且戒嚴期間及其終止後三個月內，外國公民不得（除有限例外）登記為擬收養人。
（圖：我與Alla在烏克蘭蘇梅一所被俄方摧毀的大學廢墟處報道—— 版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
意大利法律也並非中立。第184/1983號法第一條第1款規定：未成年人有在其原生家庭成長的權利；第8條將可收養性定義為一種遺棄狀況，前提是缺乏照料並非因暫時的不可抗力；第36條要求外國未成年人須經證明為遺棄或其生父母同意方可收養。即便是憲法法院第33/2025號裁定——為個人打開了國際收養通道——也重申了這類未成年人仍須處於遺棄狀態。2022年，意大利通過國際收養委員會鑒於持續緊急局勢而暫停了對烏克蘭和俄羅斯聯邦的新收養委托。
（視頻：我與Alla在烏克蘭尼任的一處掩體中報道，那裏烏克蘭學生正在學習醫學—— 版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
此處出現最為敏感的跨國法律問題：慣常居所及由此產生的司法管轄權問題。
歐洲委員會第2529/2024號決議認為，身處國外的烏克蘭未成年人僅應被視為在東道國就臨時保護目的存在。因此，1996年海牙公約第6條不適用，而第5條則適宜將司法管轄中心保留在烏克蘭。
歐洲電子司法門戶則給出相反解釋：對於來自第三國的國際流離失所兒童，1996年海牙公約第6條第1款可將管轄權賦予東道國。然而即便采納此解釋，慣常居所並非僅為形式概念或法律時間表：而是一項實事判斷，取決於兒童實際生活中心、安置的質量與穩定性，及留居原因。
戰時撤離不可同日而語於自願移民，時間的推移本身不應導致不可逆的穩定化，從而正當化親子關係的切斷。
在處理戰爭流離失所兒童時，法律應優先考慮可逆的解決方案：寄養、監護和保護性安置——而非最不可逆的措施。
（視頻：我與Alla在我們探訪頓巴斯受傷兒童時的報道——版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
還應注意，1996年海牙公約可以為跨國保護、親權責任及當局之間合作提供指引，但並不能為收養提供法律正當性。公約第4條明確將收養及其準備性措施排除在其適用範圍之外。此外，意大利判例已對烏克蘭的保護令給予完全效力：在第17603/2023號裁定中，最高法院確認烏克蘭駐那不勒斯總領事委任監護人的決定在意大利有效。同一公約第23條亦規定承認其他締約國發布的決定的自動效力。
該決定與意大利法律及歐洲標準的兼容性顯然存在嚴重疑問。
斯特拉斯堡人權法院曾多次指責各國在未讓父母充分參與的情況下決定收養或終止家庭關係：在Pontes訴葡萄牙案中，法院認定缺乏充分理由和定期接觸；在A.K.與L.訴克羅地亞案中，兒童在母親不知情或不參與的情況下被送交收養；在Zhou訴意大利案中，因在考慮終止家庭關係前未采取足夠努力。
（視頻：我與Alla在基輔被俄方轟炸的奧赫馬特德兒童醫院報道 —— 版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
據盧比涅茨稱，類似風險可能涉及另外82名烏克蘭未成年人。
如果他所引用的關於父母僅為“遠程出席”的表述確實反映了萊切案中對家庭參與的處理，那麽對歐洲人權公約構成的風險將非常嚴重。
若該案質疑如被確認，將不僅將影響意大利與烏克蘭的關係，也將質疑意大利司法體係與其所宣稱遵循原則的一致性。
保護一名從戰區撤離的兒童，不應等同於利用其脆弱性使其與家庭的分離成為不可逆轉。
保護應是抵製將始於創傷的境況稱為“穩定”，以及將可能被視為在既成事實麵前放棄權利的做法標榜為“兒童最佳利益”。
（視頻：我與Alla在雅希德內曾被俄方占領者關押超過100名平民包括兒童的集中營報道—— 版權所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
***
在1519天的戰爭中，我們從前線錄製了250多段視頻，並撰寫了1500多篇文章。
我們盡最大努力從幾乎沒有媒體敢進入的地帶進行真實的一手報道，這意味著我們長期生活在“殺傷區”。我們承擔風險，但若沒有你們寶貴的支持，我們的聲音將無從傳出。若沒有遠方的勇敢的人們轉發分享我們的文章，它們將無人問津。我們的報道會被忽視，我們的努力將付諸流水。這裏還有大量工作要做，周圍的人們境況同樣艱難。
我們正在更新籌款活動，感謝每一位加入我們、幫助修複俄羅斯破壞的人們。僅靠一家勇敢的報紙為我們每篇文章支付微薄稿酬以維持前線報道極為困難。因此，我們感激所有支持並信任我們使命的善良人們。
哪怕是小小的捐助也有助益。
我們會持續為你們更新事態進展。
謝謝大家，親愛的朋友們
如果你認可我們的工作，請支持我們
在過去三年裏，自烏克蘭大規模戰爭爆發以來，作為自由撰稿人，我們一直在烏克蘭戰爭的所有前線進行報道…
Paypal捐款鏈接：https://www.paypal.com/pools/c/9oqgW5u5oE
