En jämförelse av vårdnad, barnets boende och bestämmanderätt inom norsk och svensk lagstiftning

Sammanfattning: This thesis is written in the area of family law and is a comparative study of Swedish and Norwegian legislation regarding custody, the child's residence and authority. In Sweden, the issue of incorporating the UNCRC has been a recurring topic of debate. It is therefore interesting to compare with a country that has chosen to incorporate the UNCRC as Norway has. Are countries different even within the law or just in their approach to incorporating? I examine not only the differences and similarities in the legislation explicitly but also if these countries try to advocates a certain type of custody and also how the best interest of the child is governed by the relevant legislation. The essay contains to begin with a descriptive part of the country where the law of custody, the child's residence, the best interest of the child and authority is treated. This information is then used in an analysis of sorting out differences and similarities between Swedish and Norwegian legislation, and to answer other questions. Sweden and Norway are very similar in many areas. There is not only a similar legal tradition but also similar legal development. Existing content in jurisdictions around custody, the child's residence and authority tells that the countries are similar, although there are some differences. To be more specific, Sweden and Norway legislation very similar current guardian's responsibility, who can get custody and the child's residence. The biggest difference is in the rules of decision making, the Norwegian so called home parent (joint custody, but the child lives permanently with one parent) have a slightly more expanded authority compared to its Swedish counterpart. Another difference is that children in Norway have been given a stronger right to be heard on issues that affect them. Regarding how the best interest of the child is governed by the relevant legislation, Sweden and Norway is quite similar. The legislature in each country has chosen to let this concept remain rather undefined in legislation, and it instead pass it on to the judiciary to interpret it further.