Advanced

Barnets bästa vid verkställighet enligt 21 kap. FB

Karlsson, Lisa LU (2011) JURM01 20112
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Innan 21 kap. FB infördes år 1968 ansågs i praxis utsökningslagen vara tillämplig i ärenden om verkställighet av avgöranden beträffande vårdnad, boende och umgänge. Mål som berörde barn prövades således enligt samma regler som egendomsobjekt. 21 kap. FB infördes som en reaktion mot att barn på detta sätt behandlades såsom vore de egendom.
Idag skall enligt lag barnets bästa komma i främsta rummet vid verkställighetsprövning enligt 21 kap. FB och tanken på barn som egendom ter sig avlägsen.

Syftet med domstols verkställighetsprövning enligt 21 kap. FB är att kontrollera att verkställighet av ett avgörande om vårdnad, boende eller umgänge verkligen är förenligt med barnets bästa. Barnets bästa är emellertid ett svårbestämt begrepp. Då... (More)
Innan 21 kap. FB infördes år 1968 ansågs i praxis utsökningslagen vara tillämplig i ärenden om verkställighet av avgöranden beträffande vårdnad, boende och umgänge. Mål som berörde barn prövades således enligt samma regler som egendomsobjekt. 21 kap. FB infördes som en reaktion mot att barn på detta sätt behandlades såsom vore de egendom.
Idag skall enligt lag barnets bästa komma i främsta rummet vid verkställighetsprövning enligt 21 kap. FB och tanken på barn som egendom ter sig avlägsen.

Syftet med domstols verkställighetsprövning enligt 21 kap. FB är att kontrollera att verkställighet av ett avgörande om vårdnad, boende eller umgänge verkligen är förenligt med barnets bästa. Barnets bästa är emellertid ett svårbestämt begrepp. Då bedömningen av barnets bästa är betydligt mer sammansatt än strikt juridiska bedömningar, har det visat sig svårt för domstol att tillämpa begreppet på ett med förarbeten och lagstiftares intentioner överensstämmande sätt.

I uppsatsen genomförs en granskning av tillämpningen av barnets bästa i fem verkställighetsärenden. Uppsatsens övergripande syfte är att utreda om verkställighetsprövning enligt 21 kap. FB i dessa ärenden fungerar som åsyftat eller om avgöranden verkställs förbehållslöst. I de flesta av de granskade besluten förefaller domstol inte ha beslutat om verkställighet förbehållslöst. Flera beslut saknar dock individuella resonemang kring det berörda barnets bästa.
Utgångspunkten vid verkställighetsprövning enligt 21 kap. FB är att barnets bästa har varit bestämmande för det avgörande beträffande vårdnad, boende eller umgänge som ligger till grund för prövningen. Detta avgörande skall i verkställighetsärendet inte omprövas. Granskningen visar att det faktum att ingen omprövning skall göras ställer höga krav på att domstol i det ursprungliga avgörandet gör en ”ordentlig” bedömning av barnets bästa och att domstol tydligt redogör för hur man resonerat. Det svåra vid prövning enligt 21 kap. FB tycks för domstol vara att hitta en balans, ett sätt att utan att göra en omprövning i sak, ändå förhålla sig till det enskilda barnets bästa. Att likt domstol i några av de granskade besluten fokusera på hur situationen ser ut för barnet under vid prövningen rådande omständigheter, och rikta in sig på barnets faktiska situation, motsvarar, i mina ögon, helt syftet bakom verkställighetsbestämmelserna i 21 kap. FB.
Uppsatsen uppmärksammar hur komplikationer tycks uppstå när domstol inte förhåller sig till det enskilda barnets förutsättningar, utan gör schablonmässiga bedömningar av barnets bästa.
I uppsatsen framhålls också det faktum att barn inte har någon talerätt i mål om verkställighet enligt 21 kap. FB, och frågan lyfts om barnets bästa verkligen kan nås utan att barn faktiskt tillerkänns talerätt.

För att barnets bästa skall anses ha kommit i främsta rummet vid en verkställighetsprövning, och för att en kontroll av att verkställighet är förenlig med barnets bästa skall anses ha genomförts, menar jag att domstol i beslut om verkställighet uttryckligen måste förhålla sig till det enskilda barnets bästa. Att öka trycket på domstolen att föra och redovisa individualiserade resonemang om barnets bästa i beslut om verkställighet skulle, anser jag, markera att just barnets bästa är det primära syftet för domstolen. Om domstol i varje enskilt fall fyller begreppet barnets bästa med innebörd, skulle detta också kunna ge bäring åt den goda vilja att se till det enskilda barnets bästa, som lagstiftaren ändå måste sägas visa. (Less)
Abstract
Before Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code (Föräldrabalk (1949:381)) was introduced, the enforcement of matters concerning custody, residence and contact was made in accordance with regular executive procedure rules. Cases involving children were consequently made according to rules which are generally applied to private property. Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code was introduced as a reaction to the fact that children were in this way treated as though they were property. Today, in accordance with Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code, the best interest of the child is a primary consideration in enforcement of matters concerning custody, residence and contact. The idea of the child as property seems distant.

The... (More)
Before Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code (Föräldrabalk (1949:381)) was introduced, the enforcement of matters concerning custody, residence and contact was made in accordance with regular executive procedure rules. Cases involving children were consequently made according to rules which are generally applied to private property. Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code was introduced as a reaction to the fact that children were in this way treated as though they were property. Today, in accordance with Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code, the best interest of the child is a primary consideration in enforcement of matters concerning custody, residence and contact. The idea of the child as property seems distant.

The purpose of judicial review under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code is to verify that the enforcement of a decision on custody, residence or contact is indeed consistent with the best interest of the child. The best interests of the child is, however, a difficult concept to define.
Since assessing the best interest of the child is more complicated than a strictly legal assessment, it has been proven difficult for courts to apply the concept in a manner consistent with preparatory work and the legislator’s intentions.

This essay consists of a study of the application of the concept “the best interests of the child” in five cases of enforcement of decisions on custody, residence and contact. The overall purpose of this essay is to investigate the enforcement review under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code in these cases; does the review work as referred to or are decisions enforced unconditionally? In most of the studied decisions, it seems the court has not decided on the execution unconditionally. Several decisions do, however, lack reasoning on the best interest of the affected child.

The review under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code takes its point of departure in that the best interest of the child has been decisive for the decision on custody, residence or contact, which forms the very basis of the review. This decision shall not be reassessed in the enforcement proceeding. The study shows that the fact that the decision shall not be reassessed requires that the court in the “initial” decision makes a proper assessment of the best interest of the child and that the court clearly sets out how the discussion has been conducted. The difficulty in conducting a trial under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code seems to be for the court to find a balance; Without making a reassessment as a whole, the court must find a way of relating to the best interest of the individual child. In some of the studied decisions, the court clearly focuses on the actual situation for the child at the time of the enforcement proceeding. In my view this corresponds entirely with the purpose behind the rules in Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code.

The essay draws attention to the complications that seem to occur when the court does not relate to the individual child's circumstances, but makes sweeping assessments of the best interest of the child. The essay also emphasizes the fact that children have no right to take legal action in matters of enforcement under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code. The question is raised whether or not the best interest of the child truly can be defined without children actually obtaining the right to take legal action.

I find that the court in the decisions on enforcement must expressly relate to the best interest of the individual child. Only then can the best interest of the child be deemed to have been the primary consideration in an enforcement investigation.

Increased pressure on the court to conduct and report individualized discussions of the best interest of the child in enforcement decisions would, in my view, highlight the best interest of the child as the court’s primary purpose. If the court in each decision fills the concept with meaning, this would also provide a bearing for the good will that the legislature still shows. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Karlsson, Lisa LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20112
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
familjerätt
language
Swedish
id
2278420
date added to LUP
2012-02-17 14:56:26
date last changed
2012-02-17 14:56:26
@misc{2278420,
  abstract     = {Before Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code (Föräldrabalk (1949:381)) was introduced, the enforcement of matters concerning custody, residence and contact was made in accordance with regular executive procedure rules.  Cases involving children were consequently made according to rules which are generally applied to private property. Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code was introduced as a reaction to the fact that children were in this way treated as though they were property. Today, in accordance with Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code, the best interest of the child is a primary consideration in enforcement of matters concerning custody, residence and contact. The idea of the child as property seems distant.

The purpose of judicial review under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code is to verify that the enforcement of a decision on custody, residence or contact is indeed consistent with the best interest of the child. The best interests of the child is, however, a difficult concept to define.
Since assessing the best interest of the child is more complicated than a strictly legal assessment, it has been proven difficult for courts to apply the concept in a manner consistent with preparatory work and the legislator’s intentions.

This essay consists of a study of the application of the concept “the best interests of the child” in five cases of enforcement of decisions on custody, residence and contact. The overall purpose of this essay is to investigate the enforcement review under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code in these cases; does the review work as referred to or are decisions enforced unconditionally? In most of the studied decisions, it seems the court has not decided on the execution unconditionally. Several decisions do, however, lack reasoning on the best interest of the affected child.

The review under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code takes its point of departure in that the best interest of the child has been decisive for the decision on custody, residence or contact, which forms the very basis of the review. This decision shall not be reassessed in the enforcement proceeding. The study shows that the fact that the decision shall not be reassessed requires that the court in the “initial” decision makes a proper assessment of the best interest of the child and that the court clearly sets out how the discussion has been conducted. The difficulty in conducting a trial under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code seems to be for the court to find a balance; Without making a reassessment as a whole, the court must find a way of relating to the best interest of the individual child. In some of the studied decisions, the court clearly focuses on the actual situation for the child at the time of the enforcement proceeding. In my view this corresponds entirely with the purpose behind the rules in Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code.

The essay draws attention to the complications that seem to occur when the court does not relate to the individual child's circumstances, but makes sweeping assessments of the best interest of the child. The essay also emphasizes the fact that children have no right to take legal action in matters of enforcement under Chapter 21 in the Children and Parents Code. The question is raised whether or not the best interest of the child truly can be defined without children actually obtaining the right to take legal action.

I find that the court in the decisions on enforcement must expressly relate to the best interest of the individual child. Only then can the best interest of the child be deemed to have been the primary consideration in an enforcement investigation. 

Increased pressure on the court to conduct and report individualized discussions of the best interest of the child in enforcement decisions would, in my view, highlight the best interest of the child as the court’s primary purpose. If the court in each decision fills the concept with meaning, this would also provide a bearing for the good will that the legislature still shows.},
  author       = {Karlsson, Lisa},
  keyword      = {familjerätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Barnets bästa vid verkställighet enligt 21 kap. FB},
  year         = {2011},
}