We Left City Life for the Woods — Now Italian Authorities May Remove Our Children

Off-grid family in Abruzzo fights court order to place children into care

Dappled sunlight filters through oak branches, chickens peck in the yard and a chocolate-coloured donkey sidles up for a nuzzle. On nearby ridgelines, ancient stone villages perch beneath a cobalt sky — the peaceful setting where Nathan Trevallion, a British ex-chef, his Australian wife Catherine Birmingham and their three children have chosen to raise their family.

How they live

The family lives off-grid in a terracotta-roofed stone farmhouse near the hilltop village of Palmoli in Italy’s Abruzzo region. They draw water from a well, produce electricity with solar panels and cultivate vegetables on small clearings carved from the surrounding woodland. Wildlife is common: the family say they have seen wolves and honey buzzards, and the children swim in a nearby stream in summer.

What triggered the authorities

The case came to the attention of local authorities after a medical emergency last September, when all five family members were taken to hospital and treated for mushroom poisoning after foraging in the woods. Carabinieri officers subsequently inspected the property — including a static caravan and an outdoor wooden lavatory — and reported the family to social services.

Social services' concerns

Local prosecutors and social services say the home is a "dilapidated ruin" lacking mains plumbing and adequate facilities, and they have criticised the parents for choosing not to enrol the children in formal school. In court papers seen by reporters, prosecutors described the living conditions as "challenging and harmful" and urged urgent placement of the children into care. Authorities have also recommended psychological evaluations for the parents and parenting courses.

The parents' position

Nathan and Catherine reject these claims. They say the farmhouse is clean and the children — eight-year-old Utopia Rose and six-year-old twins Galorian and Bluebell — are healthy, bilingual and emotionally stable. The couple practise "unschooling", combining hands-on learning, outdoor exploration and basic instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic. They say they take state exams to demonstrate progress and keep up with vaccinations and medical care.

"The threat of that... you have no idea of the anxiety, the night tremors that we wake up with," Catherine told reporters. "They do not have the right to take our children and that is why we are standing strong."

Legal steps so far

In April, a children's court in L'Aquila suspended the couple's parental responsibility and placed the children under social-services supervision. A special administrator (curatore) was appointed to oversee the children's welfare. Recently, the children were questioned by a judge from the juvenile tribunal in L'Aquila; Judge Roberto Ferrari is due to issue a ruling soon on whether the children should be removed from the family.

Public reaction and background

The family's story has attracted strong media attention in Italy and an online petition titled "Salviamo la famiglia che vive nel bosco" ("Let's save the family living in the forest") has gathered support. The couple bought the previously abandoned property in 2021 and say they live there to reduce stress, be present for their children and offer them a simpler childhood away from consumerism and screens. They also emphasise that they are financially solvent, own the property outright and that Nathan maintains the house and garden.

What might change

Prosecutors may ask the court to require practical changes — for example, installing an internal bathroom connected to the mains sewer system — as conditions for restoring parental responsibility. The family say they are unwilling to "conform" to demands they view as intimidation and vow to appeal any ruling that removes their children.

As the family awaits the court's decision, they continue daily chores, care for animals including a donkey named Gallipoli, and prepare for the possibility of further legal battles. The case raises complex questions about parental rights, alternative education, cultural expectations and how social services assess child welfare in non‑conventional households.