This research analyses the legal and emotional tension that emerges when the measure of prohibition of approach is applied in cases of child‐to‐parent violence (CPV). Through a bibliographic review and a qualitative case‐study analysis, the paradox between the protection of victimised parents and the preservation of the family bond is examined. The results show that this measure generates significant difficulties: therapeutic paralysis by making joint family intervention impossible, uprooting of the minor, and the risk of a rebound effect after reunification. A clash is also identified with the fundamental right to the reeducation and social reintegration of the offending minor. The study concludes that there is a need for a more flexible judicial approach that integrates restorative alternatives and psychosocial support, ensuring effective protection of victims without sacrificing the reconstruction of the family unit.