Permanent residence for child after domestic relocation – the significance of omission to notify

Supreme Court judgment 24 September 2020, HR-2020-1843-A, (case no. 20-059574SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.

A (Counsel John Christian Elden) v. B (Counsel Morten Engesbak)

Justices: Møse, Noer, Bull, Østensen Berglund, Steinsvik

In a dispute between former cohabitants on permanent residence for their two children, the majority of the Supreme Court found that the children were still to live permanently with their mother after she had moved with them to a different part of the country, see section 36 of the Children Act. The moving was a reaction to the father's purchase of a house next to hers. She had not complied with her duty of notification under section 42a of the Children Act. The children preferred living with their mother. The risk of harm would have been bigger if they had been transferred from her to their father. On the other hand, the consideration of the best overall parent contact suggested that the children should live with their father. It was also stated that the breach of the duty of notification could not lead to a change of permanent residence unless this would be in the children's best interest after an overall assessment. The minority of two justices, who found that it would be best for the children to be transferred to their father, attached more importance to the breach of the duty of notification. Dissenting votes 3-2.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Til toppen