Umgänge trots våld? - En kvalitativ innehållsanalys utifrån svenska domar om umgänge när våld har förekommit

Abstract: Our thesis aimed to investigate how the Swedish district courts and appellate courts present arguments for visitation rights while safeguarding children's rights in custody cases involving instances of violence. The analysis and concluding discussion focused on three research questions: How do the district courts and appellate courts argue on visitation rights in custody cases involving instances of violence? What similarities and differences exist in the assessments of the district court and the court of appeals in custody disputes, and how do their decisions contribute to the formulation of visitation rules? How can the court's argument be understood regarding visitation rights from a children's rights perspective? The method involved a qualitative content analysis of twelve appellate court cases. Our selection of custody cases has been deliberately chosen focusing on situations involving disputed contact cases with indications of child abuse and intimate partner violence and visitation issues with one parent. The thesis excluded cases where children are not involved and where honor-related violence was mentioned. Initially, the norm of contact presumption recurs in the empirical data dominating over other legal principles and consequently acquiring a normative effect. Furthermore, it becomes evident when the court must balance multiple considerations, such as the best interests of the child or the suitability of parents. The courts consistently emphasized specific expectations regarding parenthood, highlighting a heteronormative ideal and that visitation must not be restricted. Children's own experiences of violence are rarely addressed in the court's reasoning, and children are deprived of the right to be heard. In conclusion, the courts tended to make interpretations of the child's needs.