This study in comparative public law analyses if the courts have decided in the best interest of the child when judging for immediate care due to domestic violence. Both Sweden and Norway have transformed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) article 3 in parts of their national legislation. The difference between the countries is that Norway in 2003 incorporated CRC as a part of their legal policy, Sweden, on the other hand, has not integrated CRC in their national laws. There is a need for research if and how the local authorities and the courts in the two countries live up to the concept for the best interest of the child. Six court decisions from both countries as well as the development of the national legislation will be analyzed. To achieve our purpose, we will use the comparative and dogmatic legal method. The comparative method will be used when we compare the similarities and differences between their national legal system and the court's judgment for immediate care for the best interest of the child. The dogmatic legal method will be used for defining the current law.

The results of this study indicate that Norway has more appropriate laws for the best interest of the child. The difference between the countries is that in Norway the court can decide based on their child specific law. While the courts in Sweden only can decide for the best interest of the child with the interpretation based on the two laws but the code is not just for the child. Despite the differences, both Sweden and Norway have appropriate laws for how the local authorities and the court should promote the best interest of the child. In the future, we hope that it would be easier for the Swedish courts to apply the best interest of the child when CRC has been incorporated into the national legislation.