The children and young people followed by Tutela Minori (Child Protection Services) numbered 60 at the end of 2022. By 30 June of this year that figure had risen to 101. Reports to the service, over the same period, more than doubled within twelve months: from 25 in 2024 to 54 in 2025, with a further 27 filed in the first half of 2026 alone. These are the figures presented to Commission IV by Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Massimo Andrea Ugolini, and the ensuing debate centred on three shortfalls: staff, protocols, and adequate premises.
The model described by the Secretary separates two functions. On one side, the UOSD Tutela Minori, responsible for assessment, protection, oversight and monitoring; on the other, the UOC Servizio Minori (Children’s Service), tasked with supporting parenting, psychological support and psychotherapy. The aim, Ugolini explained, is to keep assessment and care distinct without breaking the continuity of support for families. Since the new structure came into force, 34 minors have been taken on by the Children’s Service for psychological or psychotherapeutic interventions, three for social welfare support, and 21 adults for parenting support; in 85% of cases intake occurred within fifteen days. Protocols are being drawn up with Paediatrics, Mental Health, Disability services and schools, and cooperation with the Rimini Fostering Centre (Centro Affidi di Rimini) has been reactivated.
On the overall framework, the Commission was largely in agreement. Marinella Lorena Chiaruzzi of the PDCS, who has professional experience in the field, defended the separation of functions but immediately flagged the issue of numbers: “Tutela Minori, however, has a genuinely very small and limited team,” warning of the risk of burnout among staff. Francesca Civerchia, also of the PDCS, noted that the distinction aligns with European recommendations and offered an alternative reading of the rising caseload: it may indicate that the system is now catching situations that previously went unnoticed.
The most concrete issue, however, concerned physical space. Emanuele Santi of Rete raised the question of the room used for protected observations and the placement of Tutela Minori within the premises of the Centro Salute Donna (Women’s Health Centre), which in his view fails to guarantee the necessary confidentiality: “That service must go back to functioning as well as possible, with a single goal: protecting children and supporting families.” Guerrino Zanotti of Libera agreed on the issue of premises, urging colleagues to avoid “petty political battles” over such a sensitive matter and to focus instead on completing staffing levels, while Miriam Farinelli of Repubblica Futura described the current location as temporary and pointed to another gap: part-time foster families are currently left without compensation.
For Denise Bronzetti of Alleanza Riformista, the most worrying figure remains the rise in cases: “Things are certainly not all in order yet.” Matteo Casali of Repubblica Futura acknowledged that separating assessment from case management “may make sense,” but criticised the gap between the mandate issued in May — which called for a review of the structure — and a report that, in his view, revealed few critical issues; he also pointed to cases where judicial authorities must be involved after a therapeutic path has already begun.
In his reply, Ugolini admitted that, given these figures, a further strengthening of staff numbers may prove necessary, and outlined three priorities: human resources, inter-service protocols, and premises — the latter to be reorganised to ensure greater confidentiality and better working conditions. The motion presented by Zanotti commits the Government to completing and verifying Tutela Minori’s staffing levels, formalising the missing protocols, ensuring structured coordination with the Children’s Service, assessing the adequacy of its premises, and reporting back to the Commission within six months. It was approved with 8 votes in favour and 4 against.
Repubblica Futura voted against, expressing “dismay” and accusing the majority of resurfacing in the document criticisms that had not emerged with the same clarity from the official report, pointing to staffing decisions made back in 2024. The line with which Casali closed the debate is likely to endure: “Staffing levels must be adequate or inadequate based on the service they are meant to guarantee — not on whoever happens to be in charge at the time.”
