Abstract
The introductory chapter presents the aim, outline, and content of the anthology. First, it describes the dilemmas and challenges that arise in custody disputes, drawing on pre-existing empirical research, discussions among policymakers, and legal scholars. Second, the chapter outlines the child welfare family-law systems of the Nordic countries. It is also argued that the focus on gender equality and the awareness of domestic violence have affected law and policymaking—as well as created new dilemmas when handling custody disputes in practice. Third, the chapter presents the paradigm shift through which children’s rights have been strengthened, for example, the right of every child to freely express their views in all matters affecting them (Article 12, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). However, the right to participation raises demands for practical implementation that, so far, have not been fully met. It is proposed that the nature and complexity of custody disputes are serious challenges for society that call for an interdisciplinary and comparative discussion. Thus, the aim of the anthology is to transcend disciplinary, institutional, and jurisdictional boundaries, in search of new knowledge that can integrate multiple perspectives and experiences. The anthology will explore how legal proceedings, in and out-of-court, can be applied to the complex problems inherent in these disputes.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Custody disputes
- Children’s rights
- Custody procedure
- Right to participation
- Gender equality
- Interdisciplinarity
1.1 Background and Purpose: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems
Many children have experienced being the object of legal disputes between their parents,Footnote 1 concerning their custody, residence, and contact.Footnote 2 Research shows that parents battling in court over their children represent a risk factor, not only for children’s health and development, but also for their own physical and mental health.Footnote 3 In addition, underlying causes such as abuse, neglect, or domestic violence can sometimes explain why parents struggle to legally obtain sole custody or limited contact.Footnote 4 Furthermore, custody disputes concern deeply emotional and intimate matters, involving relationships that will continue long after the legal proceedings have concluded. This illustrates the complexity of the problems underlying legal disputes concerning custody, residence, and contact. Thus, there are good reasons for preventing custody disputes or implementing legal proceedings that minimize the negative effects and optimize positive outcomes for children and their families.
The aim of this anthology is to explore how such legal proceedings in, and out-of-court, can be matched with the complex problems that are both caused by, and underlie such disputes. The anthology draws specifically on Nordic experiences of resolving custody disputes. However, the challenges are not unique to the Nordic legal systems: they exist across the world in various legal systems.
The twentieth century represented a paradigm shift in terms of how the interests and perspectives of the child are conceptualized in society at large. This ideological transformation is reflected in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted by the UN General Assembly in November 1989. Today, the CRC is the most widely ratified human-rights treaty; it is part of a ‘globalization of childhood’ in the sense that it features an understanding of childhood, what a child is, and is presented as universal.Footnote 5 Since its adoption, the CRC has influenced custody-dispute legislation and practice on a global level.Footnote 6 The general principles of the best interests of the child (Article 3) and the right to participation (Article 12) play a prominent role in child custody conflicts. Article 3—pivotal to the whole convention—provides a general standard which underpins the rights set out in subsequent articles. The concept of the child’s best interests is aimed at ensuring a holistic development of the child and embraces the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral, psychological, and social development.Footnote 7
Beyond being a substantive right, Article 3 is to be understood as a rule of procedure; assessing and determining the best interests of the child requires procedural guarantees. Therefore, applying the principle also sets a standard for a legal proceeding and requires, for example, a qualitative and individualized investigation of all relevant elements, if possible, by a multi-professional team—including the child’s own view.Footnote 8 The importance of hearing the child and including the child’s view is also covered by Article 12 and requires that the child is given the opportunity to express their views with respect to all matters that affect them, and the decision-maker must consider the child’s view in accordance with their age and maturity.Footnote 9 The CRC thus sets certain standards for a legal proceeding concerning the best interests of the child and therefore also for custody dispute proceedings. However, it does not directly address custody-dispute proceedings; nor does the Committee on the Rights of the Child pursue the subject in more depth in its general comments.Footnote 10
In many legal systems, custody disputes are family-law disputes, and are resolved according to rules of civil procedure. The accusatory character of such proceedings has been argued as unsuitable for custody disputes. Framing a custody dispute as civil procedure can cause the parties’ arguments to overshadow the investigation and assessment of the best interests of the child. It can also intensify and prolong the conflict between the parents.Footnote 11 With the aim of preventing court disputes, out-of-court dispute resolution proceedings have emerged within different national legal systems, with mediation being the most established concept.Footnote 12 However, research has shown that there are several challenges associated with these proceedings and they risk creating unwanted outcomes that are not in the best interests of the child. For instance, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms might fail to allow consideration of the child’s own views. Power imbalances between the parties can have a negative impact on agreements regarding custody, and risk factors could be overlooked. In addition, research has noted a lack of a theoretical basis and the absence of educated professionals in the process.Footnote 13
Applying the principle of the best interests of the child in a custody matter is a prognostic assessment that includes the identification of both short- and long-term consequences for the child.Footnote 14 Prognostic assessments also exist in other areas of law, such as medical law, migration law, and environmental law. A common feature of legal problems addressed in such assessments is that they are comparatively new to the legal system.Footnote 15 In legal scholarship, new theoretical approaches have emerged in relation to the assessment of future events and risks in legal proceedings. One such theoretical approach is proactive law, in which the law is seen as an instrument that can create success and foster sustainable relationships, rather than a constraint requiring compliance from companies and people.Footnote 16 Similarly, preventive law seeks to encourage new methods and concepts for how legal services can be organized to avoid conflict and disputes, with the goal of managing facts and events to avoid unwanted legal consequences.Footnote 17 Furthermore, Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) studies the extent to which a legal rule or practice influences the psychological wellbeing of the person or persons affected by the rule or practice, and explores ways in which anti-therapeutic consequences can be reduced, and instead improve therapeutic consequences.Footnote 18
Several of the abovementioned theories and concepts have connections with more established out-of-court resolution models, such as mediation. However, while mediation has a long tradition and roots in commercial-law conflicts, the proactive, preventive, and therapeutic law theories have emerged more recently and address a variety of legal problems. The emergence of the abovementioned theories indicates that new research methods and dispute resolution models might be needed in order to tackle new societal problems, and to achieve outcomes that are better adapted to the problem itself.
Given the challenges and complexities of custody-dispute proceedings, the present anthology relies on a comprehensive procedural-law approach that considers the emotional, personal, and intimate character of custody disputes, underlying causes, and the effects that such disputes can have on the health of both children and parents. Furthermore, it includes the substantive as well as the procedural international standards enshrined in the CRC, and addresses the question of how legal proceedings in custody disputes can be adapted to the best interests of the child. The anthology presents both theoretical and empirical perspectives of custody disputes that account for the complexity of the issue. As a result, this anthology transcends disciplinary, institutional, and jurisdictional boundaries in search of new knowledge, with a view to exploring how legal proceedings, in and out-of-court, can be matched to the complex problems underlying these proceedings.
1.2 Setting the Scene—The Nordic Legal Systems and Swedish Law as an Example
Custody proceedings take different forms in different countries: the legal and institutional arrangements in place to tackle these conflicts have emerged in political and historical contexts specific to a particular state or tradition. However, across the world, the best interests of the child should now be the fundamental standard that permeate legal decision-making concerning the child. For this reason—and those relating to the nature and effects of custody disputes on health and long-term personal and emotional relationships—custody disputes present similar challenges in different legal systems.
The present book primarily draws on Nordic experiences—positive as well as negative—from in and out-of-court mechanisms as means of resolving custody disputes. However, the challenges addressed are by no means unique to Nordic legal systems. Rather, similar challenges exist in all states seeking to realize the best interests of the child in situations where the parents are involved in a deep conflict. Nevertheless, since in this book the Nordic legal systems and in particular Swedish law, serve as a context and an example of how such challenges are and have been addressed, it is worthwhile to briefly review some of the features of these legal systems.
Nordic societies and legal systems share some features that are central to the discussions and analyses of custody disputes and children in parental conflicts. One such feature is the basic historical relationship between the state and the individual, sometimes referred to as the Nordic welfare model—a system characterized by a strong state, or rather, a large and expensive public sector, with welfare benefits and services.Footnote 19 This system is defined as more family-oriented than child-oriented in the sense that children encompassed by the development of a strong welfare legislation, are not given a prominent or independent position in the law.Footnote 20 Such a system focuses on early prevention and support to the child and the child’s family, rather than a more reactive approach, which characterizes a system focused on child protection. A family-oriented child-welfare system is primarily focused on support for the family as a whole, based on voluntary measures and collaboration as a first option and compulsory interventions as an exception. While there are organizational differences among the Nordic countries’ systems, they can all be described as family-oriented child-welfare systems. This may explain why social services also generally play a role in custody disputes.Footnote 21 At the same time, a more recent focus on children’s rights has moved these systems in a new direction. The ratification of the CRC, which has been incorporated into national law in all the Nordic countries except Denmark (though Denmark has ratified the Convention), imprints the procedural law applicable to parental conflicts of today and has played an important role in shifting to a more child rights-based perspective.Footnote 22 This has also led to a greater focus on both children’s right to participation and right to protection from violence and abuse.
Over the past couple of decades, gender equality has affected family law governing custody disputes in Nordic countries.Footnote 23 This has led to co-parenting, both in legislation and in society as a whole, as the norm in separated families. When both parents seek to take an active part in parenthood, it raises the bar with respect to what is required in terms of cooperation between them.Footnote 24 The emphasis on co-parenthood in law and society, and its consequences for custody disputes, is discussed in several chapters in the anthology.Footnote 25 Gender equality is also one of the reasons for a greater awareness of the existence of domestic violence. Research indicates that domestic violence (or alleged violence) is present in over 50% of litigated child custody cases in Sweden.Footnote 26
Furthermore, in Nordic countries, the corporal punishment of children of all ages is always considered illegitimate and an act of violence. The bar is very low in this regard. Even if the legislation varies among Nordic countries, the attitude towards violence, in the legal sense, can be characterized as zero tolerance.Footnote 27 The growing awareness of the harm caused by violence against children and exposure to domestic violence, as well as the strengthening of children’s right to protection, has affected the legislation in criminal law, social welfare law, and family law concerning custody disputes. For example, it has led to legislation that identifies violence as a serious risk factor for children when assessing the best interests of the child and impacted the attentiveness and the notion of responsibility of public welfare authorities and the courts. Therefore, the conflict between the child’s right to protection from violence and the child’s right to a close relationship with his or her parents is often the core question in a high-conflict custody dispute. These issues are addressed from various perspectives by several authors contributing to this volume.Footnote 28
As highlighted above, the aim to promote co-parenting and prevent parental conflicts from ending up in court has led to implementation of out-of-court resolution models to handle and prevent parental conflicts.Footnote 29 This has taken various approaches in Nordic countries, but a common feature is that achieving out-of-court solutions tends to be considered a goal in itself, beneficial to both children and parents. One reason for this is that bringing custody disputes before the court is believed to be associated with a risk of intensifying a parental conflict. Out-of-court dispute resolution is discussed in several contributions to the present work.Footnote 30
Recent decades have seen an increased emphasis on children’s rights through—for instance—the impact of the CRC. This is particularly the case for Article 12, which represents a view of children as competent agents who can participate in custody disputes. Under Swedish legislation, however, a child does not have the status of a party in custody cases. As a result, the discussion and the legislation concerning the child’s right to participate in custody disputes has focused on alternative means of enabling the child to present their views. One challenge is finding a balance between protecting the child from being drawn into the parents’ conflict, while still giving the child the opportunity to express their views, share experiences, and influence the decision. Even if children are increasingly being heard in custody disputes in Sweden and other Nordic countries, studies show that this is not always the case and that the views of children are not sufficiently considered in judicial decision-making.Footnote 31
1.3 Structure of the Anthology
To fulfil the purpose set out above—to explore how legal proceedings in and out-of-court can be matched to the complex problems caused by, and underlying custody disputes—the present anthology brings together scholars and practitioners from different disciplines and areas of law. The contributions take historical, theoretical, and interdisciplinary perspectives and examine how the law is applied and affects children and parents involved.
In Chapter 2, Children’s Health Matters in Custody Conflicts—What Do We Know? Licensed Psychologist and Psychotherapist, Anna Norlén, provides a literature review about the interrelationships between joint custody, interparental conflict, and the wellbeing of children. This is based on a selection of recent publications from child psychology and developmental research perspectives. Norlén points to various ways in which children are affected by long-standing parental conflicts and violence and uses this knowledge as a basis for identifying the type of support needed in each case. In particular, she highlights the need for allowing a child to express and explore their feelings. The chapter concludes that the means of effectively supporting children in custody conflicts must be further developed and researched and presents suggestions for supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children in custody conflicts.
In Chapter 3, Scandinavian Perspectives on Alternative Legal Proceedings in Custody Conflicts, Anna Nylund, a professor of Procedural Law, maps and analyses the definition, purpose, and content of alternative legal proceedings in custody conflicts in Scandinavian legal systems. She discusses the fact that in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, such proceedings take place both in court and through social services, and how there is a lack of coordination between the two instances. Expert mediators are involved in some of the proceedings, but the qualifications and methods used by the mediator are not yet defined. The conclusion is reached that the lack of clear content, role definition, and coordination results in alternative legal proceedings that do not sufficiently account for the rights and perspectives of the child.
In Chapter 4, Custody Disputes—A Socio-Legal Perspective, Annika Rejmer, an associate professor of Sociology of Law, gives an in-depth analysis of high-conflict custody disputes in court. She discusses whether the Swedish legislation efficiently caters for children’s rights and the best interests of the child in these disputes. Based on a qualitative and quantitative study of 33 Swedish court cases, this socio-legal contribution identifies and analyses the most common conflicts arising from family disputes, and whether the legal system is able to solve them. The author categorizes conflicts in custody disputes in two ways: conflicts of interest, and conflicts of value. The legal system is designed to deal with the former—concerning issues of residence, finance, time, and information. However, the system is not well-equipped to deal with the conflicts of value that dominate custody disputes: lack of childcare ability, cooperation difficulties, violence, threats and abuse, and access sabotage, among others. The author concludes that the best interests of the child remain insufficiently addressed in custody conflicts.
In Chapter 5, Children’s Participation and Perspectives in Family Disputes, Maria Eriksson, a professor of Social Sciences, examines how agency interventions in the lives of children involved in custody disputes, can become as child-centred and child-friendly as possible from a sociological point of view. The chapter is divided in two parts, the first focusing on child health in family disputes and the second on children’s participation and perspectives. The results of several empirical studies of children in contact with family-law services are presented and their implications for policy and practice are identified. On a policy level, the author contends that boundaries between family-law proceedings and child welfare are dissolved. To reach that objective in practice, the issue of children’s participation is connected to risk assessments and how to best communicate with children. The author explains how the principle of care and the principle of participation can be simplified and applied in practice to contribute to the child’s sense of security and coherence. Eriksson further argues that children’s participation can be enhanced by drawing on research of how to best communicate with the child. Finally, the contribution discusses children’s agency beyond participation, noting that the children interviewed in one of the studies emphasized their right to decide for themselves.
In Chapter 6, Mapping Paths to Family Justice: Resolving Family Disputes Involving Children in Neoliberal Times, Anne Barlow, a professor of Family Law and Policy, Rosemary Hunter, a professor of Law and Socio-Legal Studies, and Jan Ewing, a Doctor of Law, assess the extent to which the interests of the child are paramount in three types of out-of-court procedures in England and Wales. It is then discussed whether, in certain types of cases, the interests of the child are better protected through in-court procedures. The chapter is based on several empirical studies of families and mediators/lawyers involved in out-of-court procedures. The authors find that while out-of-court procedures generally are child-focused, it is less common that they are child-inclusive or that the voice of the child is reflected in the adult decision-making. Further, in the out-of-court procedure, ‘child welfare’ tends to be understood in terms of ongoing contact with both parents and co-parenting. Consequently, the protection of children from an abusive parent, risks being under-emphasized. In addition, concerns about children, in some instances, tend to be overshadowed by a problematic financial situation. Further, given there is growing evidence that many children would like to be consulted in out-of-court family dispute resolution, and that (where it is appropriate and safe), this can be a positive for children’s wellbeing. Consideration is given to how current practice in family dispute resolution fits with the rights expressed in Article 12 CRC. In conclusion, the authors find a need for distinguishing different types of conflicts and adjusting procedures accordingly.
In Chapter 7, Out-Of-Court Custody Dispute Resolution in Sweden—A Journey Without Destination, Anna Singer, a professor of Family Law, explores the development of out-of-court custody dispute resolution in custody conflicts in Swedish law and related legal scholarship. The chapter discusses the practical effects of Swedish family-law reforms and the continued efforts on behalf of the legislature, to avoid settlement of custody disputes by the courts. Mechanisms used to avoid the initiation of formal judicial proceedings are mapped, such as availability of cooperation talks (which can be initiated by both the parents themselves and by the court), mediation, and a mandatory information meeting. The author finds that the role of social services and the courts in custody disputes, as well as the responsibility they have towards one another and in relation to the parents, is not always clearly defined in the law. She further identifies a number of challenges relating to the application of the law in practice, for example, the appointment of an independent mediator, which is relied on in only 1–3% of cases. Finally, Singer argues that parents in custody disputes have problems that were not considered in the initial design of custody dispute processes: the Swedish out-of-court processes are too rigid in the sense that they only fit some of the families targeted and are not sufficiently adapted to the varying and often complex needs of a modern family.
In Chapter 8, Children’s Health Matters in Custody Conflicts: Best Interests of the Child and Decisions on Health Matters, Trude Haugli and Randi Sigurdsen, both professors of Law, address conflicts of interest that can arise when there are ongoing custody disputes and how legal instruments can be used to deal with a situation where parents disagree over a decision that must be taken concerning a child’s health. When a child is younger than 16 years, their custodians must give consent regarding health matters. The child has a right, however, to be heard, and the custodians must act in the best interests of the child. Through the analysis of several potential scenarios, the authors discuss, from a Norwegian legal context, whether parents in conflict are in fact able to act in the best interests of the child, and whether the child’s right to participation is respected. The authors conclude that the limited legal—or other—tools provided to parents and/or health institutions can lead to sole custody being the only way to solve the disagreement. The authors point out the dilemma in cases where the custody dispute or the parental conflict is the reason behind the child’s need for treatment.
In Chapter 9, Challenges When Family Conflicts Meet the Law—A Proactive Approach, Thomas D Barton, a professor of Law, analyses the prospective and therapeutic character of parental conflict from a proactive-law perspective, discussing whether and how legal proceedings could be adapted to it. The chapter starts with the premise that there is an interdependence of problems and procedures in the context of domestic relations legal issues and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. For the author, attributes of domestic relations problems—especially child custody issues—do not fit well with the capabilities of traditional legal procedures. Yet this lack of fit between problem and procedure can be overcome and procedures improved. Using a proactive approach, the author identifies a need for acknowledging and incorporating different ways of speaking about domestic relations problems. He concludes that the legal system should supplement its traditional problem-solving methods with others.
Finally, in Chapter 10, Beyond the Horizon: Matching Legal Proceedings to the Problems in Custody Disputes, Anna Kaldal, a professor of Procedural Law and Agnes Hellner, a senior lecturer of Procedural Law, draw on the findings of the previous chapters of the anthology to discuss how the challenge of matching legal proceedings to problems in custody disputes could be further addressed in the future. The first conclusion is that the nature of and inherent causes of custody conflicts, and how parent–child relationships, children’s health, risk factors, and other aspects characterizing custody conflicts should be understood and considered in legal proceedings in and out-of-court. The second conclusion relates to the tensions between a private-law understanding of custody disputes and an understanding that relies on the best interests of the child as a starting point—especially when viewing the child as a rights-bearer. Tensions between legal structures that have been conserved, despite numerous legislative amendments, and more recently introduced legal objectives are discussed. The third conclusion relates to those challenges associated with guaranteeing the child’s own procedural rights—particularly the right to participation. Respecting the child’s right to participation ensures that the child is treated as a rights-bearer and active agent, with thoughts and ideas worth considering during decision-making. The fourth conclusion is that legal fragmentation which manifests in several ways in the law governing custody disputes and proceedings. Today, the best interests of the child is an international legal standard applicable in custody disputes, although it has been criticized for being vague. At the same time, national laws define the more precise content of the standard, with respect to both substantive and procedural law. The normative content of the law is thus defined on several levels of government. Furthermore, due to the complex nature of the conflicts underlying custody disputes, legal responses to the resulting problems take various forms and involve a wide range of agencies and courts—all with different mandates and investigational powers. The authors argue that in this legal landscape, it is essential to ensure that the application of the principle of the best interests of the child involves an individualized and knowledge-based assessment, one that integrates perspectives from several disciplines.
Notes
- 1.
Parental separation is predominantly a Western phenomenon. In the European Union, 17% of children live in a single parent household, see Anna Nylund, ‘A Dispute Systems Design Perspective on Norwegian Child Custody in Mediation’ in Anna Nylund, Kaijus Ervasti and Lin Adrian (eds), Nordic Mediation Research (Springer 2018). Joint physical custody (JPC), also referred to as shared parenting and shared residence—where a child lives with each parent for at least 25–50% of the time after separation or divorce—is increasingly common in many Western societies, see Anja Steinbach, ‘Children's and Parents’ Well-Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review’ (2019) 58(2) Family Process 353–369; Daisy JH Smeets and Stephanie Rap, ‘Pedagogical Insights on Why and How to Involve Children’, Wendy Schrama, Marilyn Freeman, Nicola Taylor and Mariëlle Bruning (eds), International Handbook on Child Participation in Family Law (Intersentia 2021); Mariëlle Bruning, Daisy Smeets and KGA Bolscher, ‘Child Participation in Dutch Family Law and Child Protection Proceedings’ in Mona Paré, Thierry Moreau, Mariëlle Bruning and Caroline Siffrein-Blanc (eds), Children's Access to Justice: A Critical Assessment (Leiden University Scholarly Publications 2022).
- 2.
In different legal systems, there are many variations of family law disputes between parents regarding their children. In this chapter the phrase ‘custody disputes’ will be used as a collective term that includes custody, residence and contact.
- 3.
Søren Sander, Jenna Marie Strizzi, Camilla S Øverup, Ana Cipric and Gert Martin Hald, ‘When Love Hurts – Mental and Physical Health Among Recently Divorced Danes’ (2020) 11 Frontiers in Psychology.
- 4.
Peter G Jaffe, Janet R Johnston, Claire V Crooks and Nicholas Bala, ‘Custody Disputes Involving Allegations of Domestic Violence: Toward a Differentiated Approach to Parenting Plans’ (2008) 46(3) Family Court Review 500–522; Paul R Amato, ‘Research on Divorce: Continuing Trends and New Developments’ (2010) 72(3) Journal of Marriage and Family 650–666; Kelly Musick and Ann Meier, ‘Are both Parents Always Better than One? Parental Conflict and Young Adult Well-being’ (2010) 39(5) Social Science Research 814–830; Fernada S Rossi, Amy Holtzworth-Munroe and Brittany N Rudd, ‘Intimate Partner Violence and Child Custody’ in Leslie Drozd, Michael Saini and Nancy Olesen (eds), Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court (Oxford University Press 2016). See also, Anne Barlow, Rosemary Hunter and Jan Ewing, ‘Mapping Paths to Family Justice: Resolving Family Disputes Involving Children in Neoliberal Times’; Annika Rejmer, ‘Custody Disputes from a Socio-legal Perspective’; Maria Eriksson, ‘Children’s Participation and Perspectives in Family Disputes’, all three in Anna Kaldal, Agnes Hellner and Titti Mattsson (eds), Children in Custody Disputes: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems (Palgrave 2023).
- 5.
Anne Trine Kjørholt, ‘Barn som samfunnsborgare—til barnets beste?’ in Anne Trine Kjørholt (eds), Barn som samfunnsborgare—til barnets beste? (Universitetsforlaget 2010) 12.
- 6.
Michael Freeman, ’Why It Remains Important to Take Children’s Rights Seriously’ (2007) 15(5) The International Journal of Children’s Rights 5–23.
- 7.
Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General comment no. 5 General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, (27 November 2003) CRC/GC/2003/527 para. 12; Michael Freeman, ‘Article 3. The Best Interests of the Child’ in André Alen, Johan Vande Lanotte, Eugeen Verhellen, Fiona Ang, Eva Berghmans and Mieke Verheyde (eds), A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Brill/Nijhoff 2007).
- 8.
CRC, General comment no. 14 on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1) (29 May 2013) CRC/C/GC/14 para. 6 (c). The principle is a dynamic concept that requires an assessment appropriate to the specific context. Para. 29 states that the principle applies to civil cases such as procedures concerning custody. The courts must provide for the best interests of the child to be considered in all such situations and decisions, whether of a procedural or substantive nature, and must demonstrate that they have effectively done so (para. 29). See also, Milka Sormunen, ‘Understanding the Best Interests of the Child as a Procedural Obligation: The Example of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2020) 20 Human Rights Law Review 745–768. In Swedish family law the best interests of the child are applied differently when the parents reach an agreement concerning custody of a child out-of-court with the support of the social services family law unit, and when the court decides in a custody dispute. In the first instance, the law states that an agreement should be accepted by the social services if it is ‘not obvious that it is in conflict with the best interests of the child’ (‘om det inte är uppenbart att avtalet är oförenligt med barnets bästa’), Swedish Children and Parent Code [Föräldrabalk] (1949:381) Chapter 6 Section 6 para. 2. If the parents do not agree, on the other hand, the court decision must be according to the best interests of the child. The reason behind this is that an agreement between the parents, in itself, is regarded as an important factor when assessing what is in the best interests of the child, and therefore can outdo other factors. Cf concerning the relation between CRC Article 3 and Article 12 in David Archard and Marit Skivenes, ‘Balancing a Child´s Best interests and a Child´s Views’ (2009) 17(1) The International Journal of Children’s Rights 1–21.
- 9.
See further for this discussion: Laura Lundy, ‘“Voice” is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (2007) 2007 33(6) British Educational Research Journal 927–842; Mark Henaghan, ‘Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children: Where Have We Come from, Where Are We Now and Where to from Here?’ (2017) 25(2) The International Journal of Children’s Rights 537–552; Daly A, ‘No Weight for “Due Weight”? A Children’s Autonomy Principle in Best Interests Proceedings’, International Journal of Children’s Rights (2018) 26(1) The International Journal of Children’s Rights 61–92.
- 10.
Divorce and separation is specified in CRC, General Comment no. 12 The right of the child to be heard (20 July 2009) CRC/C/GC/12 para. 15. According to the comment children have a right to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings that affects the child, such as court proceedings or mediation processes. The Committee emphasizes the importance of taking the child’s view into account in custody disputes, CRC, General Comment no. 12 paras. 32, 50 and 51.
- 11.
Jessica J Sauer, ‘Mediating Child Custody Disputes for High Conflict Couples: Structuring Mediation to Accommodate the Needs & Desires of Litigious Parents’ (2007) 7(3) Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 501–533; Nylund (n 2). This is also discussed in Rejmer (n 4); Anna Singer, ‘Out-of-court Custody Dispute Resolution in Sweden—A Journey Without Destination’ and Anna Nylund ‘Scandinavian Family Mediation: Towards a System of Differentiated Services?’ , both in Anna Kaldal, Agnes Hellner and Titti Mattsson (eds), Children in Custody Disputes: Matching the Legal Proceedings to the Problem (Palgrave 2023).
- 12.
Sauer (n 11); Nylund (n 11).
- 13.
Nylund (n 11).
- 14.
CRC, General comment no. 14 (n 8), para. 74, and CRC, General comment no. 7, para. 45; Freeman (n 6); Anna Kaldal, Parallella processer. En rättsvetenskaplig studie av riskbesömningar I vårdnads- och LVU-mål[A Legal Study of Risk Assessments in Custody and Child Protection Cases] (Jure 2010).
- 15.
Cf Elizabeth Fisher, ‘Risk and Environmental Law: A Beginner’s Guide’ in Benjamin J Richardson and Stepan Wood Environmental Law for Sustainability (Hart 2006) 97, 102.
- 16.
Gerlinde Berger-Walliser and Kim Østergaard, Proactive Law—in a Business Environment (1st edn Tilst, DJØF Publishing, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2012) 16; Thomas D Barton, Preventive Law and Problem Solving. Lawyering for the Future (Vandeplas publishing 2009).
- 17.
Barton (n 16).
- 18.
David B Wexler, Michael L Perlin, Michel Vols, Pauline Spencer and Nigel Stobbs, ‘Editorial: Current Issues in Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ (2016) 16(3), QUT Law Review 1–3.
- 19.
Pia Letto-Vanamo ‘Courts and Proceedings: Some Nordic Characteristics’ in Laura Ervo, Pia Letto-Vanamo and Anna Nylund (eds), Rethinking Nordic Courts (Springer 2021) Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 90, 21, 23; Jaakko Husa, Kimmo Nuotio and Heikki Pihlajamäki ‘Nordic Law—Between Tradition and Dynamism’ in Jaakko Husa, Kimmo Nuotio and Heikki Pihlajamäki (eds), Nordic Law – Between Tradition and Dynamism (Intersentia 2007) 26–28; Susanna Johansson, Kari Stefansen, Elisiv Bakketeig and Anna Kaldal,’Implementing the Nordic Barnahus Model: Characteristics and Local Adaptions’ in Susanna Johansson Kari Stefansen, Elisiv Bakketeig and Anna Kaldal (eds), Collaborating Against Child Abuse Exploring the Nordic Barnahus Model (Palgrave Macmillan 2017) 8; Gösta Esping-Andersen, ‘The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ (1990) Cambridge Polity Press 9–54.
- 20.
Johansson and others (n 19) 9.
- 21.
In Sweden and Finland, the child-welfare system is a part of a municipality’s general social-services system; in Norway, Iceland, and Denmark, child welfare is regulated and organized as an independent body. See Johansson and others (n 19) 10.
- 22.
In the case of Norway and Finland, the obligation to respect the Convention on the Rights of the Child is enshrined in constitutional law. See further Trude Haugli, Anna Nylund, Randi Sigurdsen and Lena RL Bendiksen (eds), Children’s Constitutional Rights in the Nordic Countries (Brill/Nijhoff 2019).
- 23.
Not least because the interpretation of the best interests of the child emphasizes the importance of both parents’ participation in the child’s life and upbringing. For example, Swedish legislation explicitly provides that the child has a right to a close and good relationship with both parents, and in most cases, it is considered that shared custody and even shared residence is in the best interests of the child. See Government Bill 2020/21:150 Ett stärkt barnperspektiv i vårdnadstvister [A Strengthened Child Rights Perspecitve in Custody Disputes].
- 24.
Johanna Schiratzki, ‘Barnrättsperspektivet i vårdnadstvister—från domstolsförhandling till föräldraförhandling. Vad händer med barnets bästa?’ (2022/23) (1) Juridisk Tidskrift 249.
- 25.
Anna Norlén, ‘Children´s health matters in custody conflicts—What do we know?’ in Anna Kaldal, Agnes Hellner and Titti Mattsson (eds), Children in Custody Disputes: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems (Palgrave 2023); Rejmer (n 4); Singer (n 11).
- 26.
The Swedish Gender Equality Agency, Uppgifter om våld är inget undantag. Redovisning av kartläggning av uppgifter om våld eller andra övergrepp i mål om vårdnad, boende och umgänge, Rapport 2022:1 [Information on Violence is no Exception. Reporting of the Mapping of Data on Violence or other Abuse in Custody, Residence and Contact or Visitation]; Eriksson (n 4).
- 27.
Johansson and others (n 19); Pernilla Leviner and Tiziana Sardiello, ‘The Swedish Ban on Corporal Punishment of Children in a Multi-Cultural Context—Conflicting Logics in the Social Services’ in Bernadette Saunders, Pernilla Leviner, and Bronwyn Naylor (eds), Corporal Punishment of Children—Comparative Legal and Social Developments towards Prohibition and Beyond (Brill/Nijhoff 2019).
- 28.
For example, Barlow, Hunter and Ewing (n 4); Rejmer (n 4); Eriksson (n 4); Norlén (n 25).
- 29.
Kirsikka Linnanmäki, ‘Mediation and the Best Interests of the Child from the Child Law Perspective’ in Nylund Kaijus Ervasti and Lin Adrian (eds), Nordic Mediation Research (Springer 2018) 209–222.
- 30.
Nylund (n 2); Singer (n 11). Barlow, Hunter and Ewing discuss this from a UK perspective in Barlow, Hunter and Ewing (n 4).
- 31.
Kristin Skjørten and Kirsten Sandberg, ‘Children’s Participation in Family Law Proceedings’ in Malcolm Langford, Marit Skivenes and Karl Harald Søvig (eds), Children’s Rights in Norway: An Implementation Paradox? (Universitetsforlaget 2019); Eriksson (n 4).
References
Amato P, ‘Research on Divorce: Continuing Trends and New Developments’ (2010) 72(3) Journal of Marriage and Family 650.
Archard D and Skivenes M, ‘Balancing a Child’s Best Interests and a Child’s Views’ (2009) 17(1) The International Journal of Children's Rights 1.
Barlow A, Hunter R and Ewing J, ‘Mapping Paths to Family Justice: Resolving Family Disputes Involving Children in Neoliberal Times’ in Kaldal A, Hellner A and Mattsson T (eds), Children in Custody Disputes: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems (Palgrave 2023) 107.
Barton T D, Preventive Law and Problem Solving. Lawyering for the Future (Vandeplas publishing 2009).
Berger-Walliser G and Østergaard K, Proactive Law—in a Business Environment (1st edn Tilst, DJØF Publishing, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag 2012).
Bruning M, Smeets D and Bolscher KGA, ‘Child Participation in Dutch Family Law and Child Protection Proceedings’ in Paré M, Moreau T, Bruning M and Siffrein-Blanc C (eds), Children's Access to Justice: A Critical Assessment (Leiden University Scholar Publications 2022).
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General comment no. 5 General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (27 November 2003) CRC/GC/2003/5.
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General comment no. 12 The right of the child to be heard (25 May–12 June 2009) CRC/C/GC/12.
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General comment no. 14 on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1) (1 February 2013) CRC/C/GC/14.
Eriksson M, ‘Children’s Participation and Perspectives in Family Disputes’ in Kaldal A, Hellner A and Mattsson T (eds), Children in Custody Disputes: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems (Palgrave 2023) 85.
Esping-Andersen G, ‘The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’ (1990) Cambridge Polity Press 9.
Fisher E, ‘Risk and Environmental Law: A Beginner’s Guide’ in Benjamin J Richardson and Stepan Wood Environmental Law for Sustainability (Hart 2006).
Freeman M, ’Why It Remains Important to Take Children’s Rights Seriously’ (2007) 15(5) The International Journal of Children’s Rights 5.
Freeman M, ‘Article 3. The Best Interests of the Child’ in Alen A, Vande Lanotte J, Verhellen E, Ang F, Berghmans E and Verheyde M (eds), A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Brill/Nijhoff 2007).
Haugli T, Nylund A, Sigurdsen R and Bendiksen L R L (eds), Children’s Constitutional Rights in the Nordic Countries (Brill/Nijhoff 2019).
Henaghan M, ‘Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children: Where Have We Come from, Where Are We Now and Where to from Here?’ (2017) 25(2) The International Journal of Children's Rights 537.
Husa J, Nuotio K and Pihlajamäki H ‘Nordic Law—Between Tradition and Dynamism’ in Jaakko Husa, Kimmo Nuotio and Heikki Pihlajamäki (eds), Nordic Law—Between Tradition and Dynamism (Intersentia 2007) 1.
Jaffe P G, Johnston J R, Crooks C V and Bala N, ‘Custody Disputes Involving Allegations of Domestic Violence: Toward a Differentiated Approach to Parenting Plans’ (2008) 46(3) Family Court Review 500.
Johansson S, Stefansen K, Bakketeig E and Kaldal A, ’Implementing the Nordic Barnahus Model: Characteristics and Local Adaptions’ in Johansson S, Stefansen K, Bakketeig E and Kaldal A (eds), Collaborating Against Child Abuse Exploring the Nordic Barnahus Model (Palgrave Macmillan 2017) 1.
Kaldal A, Parallella processer. En rättsvetenskaplig studie av riskbesömningar I vårdnads- och LVU-mål [A Legal Study of Riskassessments in Custody and Child Protection Cases] (Jure 2010).
Kjørholt T A, ‘Barn som samfunnsborgare—til barnets beste?’ in Kjørholt T A (eds), Barn som samfunnsborgare—til barnets beste? (Universitetsforlaget 2010) 11.
Letto-Vanamo P ‘Courts and Proceedings: Some Nordic Characteristics’ in Laura Ervo, Pia Letto-Vanamo and Anna Nylund (eds), Rethinking Nordic Courts (Springer 2021) Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 90 21.
Leviner P and Sardiello T, ‘The Swedish Ban on Corporal Punishment of Children in a Multi-Cultural Context—Conflicting Logics in the Social Services’ in Bernadette Saunders, Leviner P, and Naylor B (eds), Corporal Punishment of Children—Comparative Legal and Social Developments towards Prohibition and Beyond (Brill/Nijhoff 2019).
Linnanmäki K, ‘Mediation and the Best Interests of the Child from the Child Law Perspective’, in Nylund A, Ervasti K and Adrian L (eds), Nordic Mediation (Springer 2018).
Lundy L, ‘“Voice” is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (2007) 33(6) British Educational Research Journal 927.
Musick K and Meier A, ‘Are both Parents Always Better than One? Parental Conflict and Young Adult Well-being’ (2010) 39(5) Social Science Research 814.
Norlén A, ‘Children’s Health Matters in Custody Conflicts—What do we know?’ in Kaldal A, Hellner A and Mattsson T (eds), Children in Custody Disputes: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems (Palgrave 2023) 21.
Nylund A, ‘A Dispute Systems Design Perspective on Norwegian Child Custody Mediation’ in Nylund A, Ervasti K and Adrian L (eds), Nordic Mediation Research (Springer 2018) 9.
Rejmer A, ‘Custody Disputes from a Socio-legal Perspective’ in Kaldal A, Hellner A and Mattsson T (eds), Children in Custody Disputes: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems (Palgrave 2023) 67.
Rossi FS, Holtzworth-Munroe A and Rudd B N, ‘Intimate Partner Violence and Child Custody’ in Leslie Drozd, Michael Saini and Nancy Olesen (eds), Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court (Oxford University Press 2016) 346.
Sander S, Strizzi M J, Øverup C S, Cipric A and Hald G M, ‘When Love Hurts—Mental and Physical Health Among Recently Divorced Danes’ (2020) Frontiers in Psychology 11.
Sauer J J, ‘Mediating Child Custody Disputes for High Conflict Couples: Structuring Mediation to Accommodate the Needs & Desires of Litigious Parents’ (2007) 7(3) Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 501.
Schiratzki J, ‘Barnrättsperspektivet i vårdnadstvister—från domstolsförhandling till föräldraförhandling. Vad händer med barnets bästa?’ (2022/23) 1 Juridisk Tidskrift 249.
Singer A, ‘Out-of-court Custody Dispute Resolution in Sweden—A Journey Without Destination’ in Kaldal A, Hellner A and Mattsson T (eds), Children in Custody Disputes: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems (Palgrave 2023) 129.
Skjørten K and Sandberg K, ‘Children’s Participation in Family Law Proceedings’ in Langford M, Skivenes M and Søvig K H (eds), Children’s Rights in Norway: An Implementation Paradox? (Universitetsforlaget 2019) 300.
Smeets D J H and Rap S, ‘Pedagogical Insights on Why and How to Involve Children’ in Schrama W, Freeman M, Taylor N and Bruning M (eds), International Handbook on Child Participation in Family Law (Intersentia 2021) 41.
Sormunen M, ‘Understanding the Best Interests of the Child as a Procedural Obligation: The Example of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2020) 20 Human Rights Law Review 745.
Steinbach A, ‘Children's and Parents’ Well-Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review’ 2019 58(2) Family Process 353.
Swedish Government Bill 2020/21:150 A Strengthened Child Rights Perspective in Custody Disputes.
Wexler D B, Perlin M L, Vols M, Spencer P and Stobbs N, ‘Editorial: Current Issues in Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ (2016) 16(3), QUT Law Review 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaldal, A., Hellner, A., Mattsson, T. (2024). Introduction: Matching Legal Proceedings to Problems in Custody Disputes. In: Kaldal, A., Hellner, A., Mattsson, T. (eds) Children in Custody Disputes. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46301-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46301-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46300-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-46301-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)