Family from the Forest: Court Psychologist Criticized for Posts, Lawyers Seek Her Removal

Italian media report another twist in the high-profile case of the British-Australian Trevallion family, who lived for years in a forest in Abruzzo. Lawyers representing the parents filed a formal motion on Monday, February 24, to remove psychologist Valentina Garrapetta from her role as a court-appointed technical consultant. The basis for the request is her social media activity, which the defense sees as evidence of bias and a lack of objectivity essential for a court expert.

The institution of an independent court-appointed expert in Italian law, similar to Polish law, is based on principles of impartiality and neutrality. The expert is obligated to present opinions solely based on evidence, without prejudice towards the parties involved. Violation of this principle constitutes a serious ground for removing the expert from the case. According to disclosed materials, the psychologist published at least five posts that directly or indirectly referred to the Trevallion case. One of them, from February 22, contained the phrase „Comportamento grave, manca imparzialità” (serious behavior, lack of impartiality), which could be interpreted as criticism of the parents' conduct. Other posts explicitly mentioned the „family from the forest” and the „Trevallions”. Garrapetta, appointed by the court to assess parental capacity, defends herself, claiming her comments concerned general ethical issues of the forensic psychology profession, not the specific case. In her view, she expressed concern about professional standards, not issued judgments. „Oggi sarà il compleanno più brutto della mia vita” (Today will be the worst birthday of my life) — Nathan Trevallion – the father of the family told the media, emphasizing the pain of separation from his children on his daughter's birthday.

The matter has already been taken up by the Italian Data Protection Authority, which has begun reviewing the psychologist's accounts for potential privacy breaches and violations of professional ethics. This body is examining whether public commentary on ongoing court cases by a person appointed as an expert violates existing regulations. The decision of the court in L'Aquila, which is considering the removal motion, will be crucial for the further proceedings. If the psychologist is removed, a new expert will need to be appointed, significantly delaying the process. If, however, the court finds her explanations sufficient, she will continue preparing her opinion, which may lead to accusations of bias from the parties. Key Arguments of the Parties: Position of the Family's Defense: Psychologist is impartial → Social media posts prove prejudice; Position of the Psychologist: Comments on general ethical issues → Does not assess the specific case, only professional standards; Position of the Supervisory Authority (Garante): Not conducting proceedings → Initiated review of social media accounts The Trevallion case has been generating significant controversy and dividing public opinion in Italy for months. On one hand, some observers see the parents' actions as a conscious rejection of civilization and potential neglect of the children. On the other, many criticize state interference in family life and the traumatic separation of children from their parents. The psychologist's situation further complicates the picture, raising questions about the limits of free speech and the impartiality obligations of individuals holding positions of public trust. The court's decision could set a precedent regarding the online activity of court-appointed experts.

Key Dates in the Case: February 22, 2026 — First critical posts by the psychologist revealed; February 24, 2026 — Formal motion to remove the expert filed; February 24, 2026 — Statement by Nathan Trevallion about his daughter's birthday