Skip to content

Barnelova § 31 — Child's right to influence decisions (verbatim, official EN translation)

Jurisdiction: Norway · Citation: Lov om barn og foreldre (barnelova) 8 April 1981 No. 7, § 31 · Authoritative source: lovdata.no — official English translation

The operative provision on the child's procedural right to be heard in Norwegian family law. § 31 establishes both (a) the parents' duty to consider the child's views in personal matters affecting the child and (b) the court's procedural framework for hearing the child in custody and contact proceedings. Norway has the earliest mandatory-hearing age threshold among the Nordic + DACH jurisdictions covered in the comparative child's voice entry: age 7.

Verbatim text (official English translation, current consolidated)

§ 31. The right of the child to influence decisions

As and when the child becomes able to form its own point of view on matters that concern it, the parents shall consider the child's opinion before making a decision on the child's personal situation. Importance shall be attached to the opinion of the child according to his or her age and maturity. The same applies to other persons with custody of the child or who are involved with the child.

A child who has reached the age of seven and younger children who are able to form their own points of view must be provided with information and opportunities to express their opinions before decisions are taken concerning personal matters affecting the child, including parental responsibility, custody and access. The opinions of the child shall be given weight according to his or her age and maturity. When the child has reached the age of 12, the child's opinion shall carry significant weight.

Why this matters for PA

  • Two-step age threshold. Age 7 establishes mandatory hearing in personal matters including parental responsibility, custody, and access. Age 12 attaches "significant weight" to the child's opinion. This is the earliest mandatory-hearing age in the comparative set — Norway places the child's voice in the proceedings substantially earlier than DE (14), AT (10), IT/IS/ES (12).
  • The capacity overlay. Even before age 7, the child "able to form their own points of view" must be heard. The provision is structurally a capacity-based framework with a statutory age floor for mandatory hearing, not a pure fixed-age framework. This is doctrinally distinctive: the capacity question is not displaced by the age threshold.
  • "Significant weight" at age 12 — not determinative. The provision is careful: at age 12 the child's opinion shall carry significant weight — but the weight is significant, not decisive. The court retains the welfare-assessment function. In alienating-conduct cases this is critical: a 12-year-old expressing strong rejection of the targeted parent is heard, but the court determines whether the view is autonomous in the welfare-assessment framework.
  • Parallel duty on persons "involved with the child." Final sentence of the first paragraph: The same applies to other persons with custody of the child or who are involved with the child. This extends the consideration-duty beyond parents to teachers, social workers, court-appointed intermediaries, etc. — a comprehensive procedural protection.
  • No SAP/PAS framework adoption. Norway has not codified PA as a juridical category; the analysis of whether the child's expressed view is autonomous is conducted within the existing welfare-assessment framework, not through a separate diagnostic-syndromal analysis.

Procedural application

  • The child's hearing is conducted by the tingrett (district court) judge, typically through a barnesakkyndig (children's expert) or in-chambers conversation
  • The familievernkontor (family counselling office) provides assessment input where the child's views are relevant to mediation
  • The barnevernet (child welfare service) provides assessment input where contact-restriction is being considered
  • Where the proceedings are intra-EU cross-border, the Brussels IIb Reg. 2019/1111 Art. 27 mandatory-hearing requirement operates alongside § 31 — see cross-border PA entry

Use in alienating-conduct cases

The Høyesterett has applied § 31 in conjunction with the § 42-43a contact framework:

  • The child must be heard (§ 31 age 7 mandatory)
  • The court determines whether the view is autonomous (welfare assessment)
  • Where autonomy is established and the welfare assessment supports the view, the view is given significant weight (§ 31 age 12)
  • Where the view is determined to be the product of alienating conduct, the court is not bound by the view — the analysis remains the welfare-paramountcy framework

This is the same operational pattern across Nordic jurisdictions — see comparative analysis in child's voice age thresholds.

Cross-reference

Sources & authoritative references

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):