A dispute concerning child support may be heard by the courts in a dispute between the private parties even if the support has been determined by Nav

A father applied to Nav for a determination of child support for his son, who resides with him. Nav set the support at zero on the ground that the mother lacked the financial means to contribute. That decision was later upheld in validity proceedings before the courts.

The mother subsequently brought an action concerning parental responsibility, residence, and contact in respect of the son. In those proceedings, the father again requested that the mother pay child support. While the District Court imposed the mother to pay, the Court of Appeal struck the claim out, holding that the father would have to bring an action against the State in order to challenge the validity of Nav’s new decision.

The Supreme Court held that the courts have jurisdiction to determine claims for child support in disputes between parents concerning parental responsibility, residence or contact, even where the level of support has previously been determined by Nav. A party who disagrees with Nav’s decision is not required to bring a validity action against the State, but may instead choose to bring an action directly against the other parent.

There was also no basis for striking out the claim on the ground that the courts had previously addressed the issue of child support in validity proceedings between the father and the State. Under the Children Act and the ordinary rules of civil procedure, a party who has lost a validity case may bring fresh maintenance proceedings against the other parent. The fact that child support can be determined administratively does not deprive the parent of the legal standing to have the claim decided by the courts.

The order of the Court of Appeal was set aside.

Read the order from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Children law, section 70 subsection 3 of the Children Act. Civil procedure, sections 1-3 and 19-15 of the Dispute Act.  

Key paragraphs: 53, 69, 73

Justices: Webster, Arntzen, Stenvik, Lund, Vang