Obligation to pay child support although a binding residence arrangement is not complied with
Supreme Court judgment 23 September 2024, HR-2024-1686-A, (case no. 23-189367SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against Borgarting Court of Appeal.
A (Counsel Øivind Robert Østberg) v. The State represented by the Directorate of Labour and Welfare (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Elisabeth Sawkins Eikeland)
The court had confirmed a court settlement between the parents that their daughter should live permanently with her father. The daughter nonetheless lived with her mother. The father believed that under these circumstances he was not obliged to pay the stipulated child support.
The father's obligation to pay child support was confirmed in a decision by the NAV Appeals Unit.
The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that NAV's decisions are valid. According to the Children Act, parents who do not live with the child are obliged to pay support. The Supreme Court found no sources of law that could lead to the father being exempted from this obligation even if a binding residence arrangement is not complied with.
Violations of a binding agreement or court decision on permanent residence can only be enforced through statutory means. The Children Act has its own rules on enforcement upon collection of the child or enforcement fines.
The judgment provides guidance on the obligation to pay child support under the Children Act.
Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)
Area of law: Children law
Key paragraphs: 40, 47-48
Justices: Matheson, Ringnes, Thyness, Stenvik , Sivertsen