Direct Divorce in Italy Without Separation: A Joint Petition for Chinese Couples (Including Italian–Chinese Marriages)
Context: Italy’s “two-step” model and the cost of running two proceedings
A couple permanently resident in Italy asked us to end their marriage by mutual consent. They had a minor child and needed a stable, court-approved framework covering parenting arrangements and the core financial/property issues (the family home and the spouses’ economic relations).
Under the standard Italian domestic route, the process usually runs in two phases: legal separation first, and only after the statutory waiting period, divorce—which means a second filing, a second court step, and duplicated paperwork. For families, that “in-between” phase is not just a formal gap: it can delay civil-status updates, complicate travel and relocation planning, slow down asset decisions, and keep day-to-day arrangements in a provisional posture longer than necessary.
Legal strategy: applicable law (Rome III) and “direct” divorce where separation is not required
We treated the matter as a private international law file from day one. Jurisdiction in Italy was solid because the spouses had their habitual residence in Italy, making the Italian court the natural forum for the joint petition. The key legal lever, however, was choice of law under Regulation (EU) 1259/2010 (“Rome III”), which allows spouses—when the legal conditions are met—to agree on the law applicable to separation/divorce among laws with a qualifying connection to the couple. Where EU rules do not fully cover the issue set, Italian Law 218/1995 provides the general private international law framework.
In this case, the relevant connecting factor allowed us to anchor the divorce to a legal system in which personal separation is not a mandatory prerequisite to divorce. That is often the situation for Chinese law, which recognizes divorce (including by mutual consent) as a direct institute rather than requiring an intermediate “legal separation” phase. Importantly, this structure is not limited to two Chinese spouses: the same architecture can apply in mixed marriages, for example Italian–Chinese couples, or any scenario where one spouse has a sufficient connection to a jurisdiction whose legal system does not require separation as a mandatory step and where a Rome III choice is admissible.
We therefore prepared and filed a single joint petition seeking immediate dissolution of the marriage, without passing through a prior separation proceeding, because the chosen applicable law did not require that intermediate stage. The decisive part was making the file “court-ready,” especially given the presence of a minor child. Even where a foreign law governs the divorce, the Italian judge must still ensure that the agreed terms comply with mandatory child-protection principles (best interests of the child) and are compatible with Italian public policy.
To meet that standard, we drafted a complete and internally consistent set of terms within the same proceeding: parenting responsibility and the child’s living arrangements, parenting time, maintenance, and allocation of ordinary and extraordinary expenses—written in a practical, enforceable way aligned with Italian court expectations. We also structured the financial/property arrangements (home and economic undertakings) so they were clear, verifiable, and approvable without generating requests for integration or adjournments.
The case concluded through a single procedure, rather than the usual separation-plus-divorce sequence. Practically, this meant one coherent document flow and one decision stage, reducing delay, complexity, and indirect costs. Most importantly, it delivered a faster and cleaner outcome for civil-status updates and family planning, while maintaining robust protection for the minor child and a legally defensible framework.
Confidentiality note: identifying details have been omitted/modified. Outcomes depend on individual circumstances and authority assessment.
