Barnens bästa och Kronofogden: Barnkonventionens utrymme i svenska domstolars utmätningsbeslut

Sammanfattning: Ever since the Swedish government incorporated the Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) into Swedish law January first 2020, changes in how the Swedish lawmen apply the law differently to different situations have been observed. This following essay will furthermore examine how lawmen apply the CRC in regard to foreclosure of housing where children live, and if the convention has somehow changed how the law is applied in those situations. This essay will discuss and compare two similar cases regarding foreclosure of housing with children living there, one before and one after the CRC was incorporated into Swedish law. Both cases appealed against the decision until it reached the Supreme court. It also involves an interview from a senior enforcement officer who is the one in charge of the foreclosures. The process is analysed from the information from the senior enforcement officer, and what information they receive and how it will affect their decisions. Michael Lipskys’ street level bureaucracy and the gap problem are used as theoretical standpoints. The results show that there is not a big difference between the two cases at all, which according to the senior enforcement officer is because the debtor can choose not to share information regarding their family situation. Whereas the courts argue that the reason is lack of legal practice. Furthermore it shows that the bailiffs need more information and legal practice to make more founded decisions.