Italian Court Removes Three Young Children from Off‑Grid Parents After Mushroom Poisonings

A court in L'Aquila has ordered three children to be placed in state care after prosecutors concluded they were at risk while living off the grid with their parents in rural Abruzzo. The decision follows a September 2024 incident in which all five family members were hospitalized after consuming wild mushrooms found near their remote home.

Court order and allegations

The removal order, issued on Nov. 20, names parents Nathan Trevallion, 51, and Catherine Birmingham, 45, and concerns their 8‑year‑old daughter and 6‑year‑old twin sons. Prosecutors cited what they described as "serious harm" to the children, pointing to the home's lack of formal habitability certification, limited sanitation, no steady income, minimal social interaction and the children's absence from formal school.

Immediate aftermath and family response

Police transferred the children to a shelter in Vasto. Under an agreement negotiated by the family's lawyer, the mother was initially allowed to accompany the children to the shelter, but the parents say they are now separated from them: Birmingham reports she is barred from seeing the children, and Trevallion says he is not permitted inside the facility.

“We’ve been imprisoned for a crime we never did. I have had my parental rights stripped from me,” Birmingham said. “There is no negligence, there is no abuse, the kids are not in danger of their lives. This is insane.”

“This is a great injustice. They have violated our rights,” Trevallion added.

Background and legal steps

The couple bought the farmhouse in Abruzzo in 2021. The residence reportedly runs off-grid using solar power and the family has been homeschooling the children. Their lawyer, Giovanni Angelucci, said the couple plan to appeal the court’s ruling and challenge the suspension of parental responsibility.

Public and political reaction

The case has drawn widespread attention and political comment in Italy. Senior officials expressed concern about the removal, and a petition supporting the family has collected substantial signatures. Local leaders and some politicians criticized the intervention as an overreach into private life and education choices, while others emphasize child welfare and the need to follow court orders pending appeal.

What happens next

The family has announced plans to appeal. Meanwhile, authorities will continue assessments of the children's physical and mental wellbeing and determine the conditions under which parental responsibility might be restored. The episode has sparked a broader public debate about off‑grid living, homeschooling and the limits of state intervention in family life.