INTERNATIONAL – A juvenile court in Tribunale per i Minori dell’Aquila has ordered that three young children be removed from their British-Australian parents, who had been raising them in a remote woodland home in central Italy, a decision that has sparked national uproar and fierce debate over alternative lifestyles.
The family, known in Italy as the Bimbi nel Bosco (“children in the forest”) comprised the parents, Nathan Trevallion and Catherine Birmingham, and their three kids: an eight-year-old girl and twin boys aged six. They had settled in the woods since 2021 in a dilapidated house without running water or indoor sanitation, using solar panels for power and drawing well water, while homeschooling their children and living alongside animals like horses and chickens.
Authorities intervened after all family members were hospitalized in 2024 following mushroom poisoning, a moment that triggered deeper scrutiny by social services. In the ensuing investigation, inspectors judged the dwelling unfit: lacking basic hygiene, utilities, toilet facilities, social ties, and any form of regular schooling.
Read More: Yokohama Pulse Day Fun Run 2025: Celebrating Heart Health, Wellness and Community Spirit
The court concluded that the children faced serious risk to their physical and mental well-being, citing violations of their rights to social inclusion, safety, and education. As a result, parental responsibility was suspended and the children were placed in a protected facility, with their mother allowed limited contact.
The parents, defended by their lawyer Giovanni Angelucci, vehemently denounced the ruling as unjust. They argue that their off-grid life was a conscious, peaceful choice grounded in nature, not neglect and they have pledged to appeal.
Public reaction has been intense. An online petition supporting the family has drawn tens of thousands of signatures, while political figures including Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini have criticized the decision, some likening the children’s removal to a forced separation.
Behind the headlines lies a deeper question: when the desire for a simple, self-sufficient life clashes with state-defined standards of child welfare, how should we weigh parental freedom against children’s rights to health, education, and social belonging?
