Previous father was granted contact rights, but not parental responsibility.

While a dispute was pending over parental responsibility, place of residence and contact rights to a child, it became clear that the mother's husband was not the child's biological father. During the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the mother moved abroad with the child. The Supreme Court's majority of three judges concluded that Norwegian courts had jurisdiction to hear the case all the way through, despite the mother and child no longer living here. A crucial factor was that the case had been brought while the child was resident in Norway, see section 82 of the Children Act, cf. section 34 of the Courts of Justice Act. Two justices dissented and argued that Norwegian jurisdiction was lost when the child moved from Norway. The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the Children Act did not confer any rights on the man in the form of permanent residence or partial parental responsibility, since he was no longer the child's parent within the meaning of the Children Act. After an individual assessment, he was granted contact rights on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR. Dissent 3-2.

Read the judgment

Areas of law: Children law. Sections 34, 36, 42 and 82 of the Children Act. Article 8 of the ECHR. 

Key paragraphs: 45, 57, 64, 72 and 75

Justices: Webster, Falkanger, Falch, Steinsvik, Sæther