Report on Swedish Conference on Cooperation in International Family Law

The author of this post is Ulf Maunsbach who is a professor of private international law at Lund University.

On 5–6 March 2026, the Swedish Network for International Family Law (SNIF) organized a conference in Lund on cooperation in international family law.

SNIF is a newly established network intended to serve as a meeting place for practitioners and academics interested in international family law. The network was originally created as part of the Swedish contribution to the research project FAMIMOVE and has primarily functioned as an informal forum for its members. The conference in Lund was the network’s first major event. The two days of the conference were devoted to partly different topics. Day 1 (held in Swedish) focused on cooperation within Sweden in cases concerning parental responsibility, with particular emphasis on international child abduction. During the day, various actors presented their perspectives on how such cases are handled, which led to constructive discussions on how communication between the involved parties could be improved.

Swedish Perspective

During the day, the perspective of legal counsel was presented by lawyers Cecilia Wachtmeister and Johan Sarvik. Both noted that international family law cases are often complex and involve many actors (courts, social authorities, local family law units, etc.), making it difficult to access the correct information and to identify who holds responsibility. These disputes are also characterized by different actors being involved at different stages, which contributes to making the cases difficult to oversee. One advantage of the Swedish system is the existence of a specialized court for cases of international child abduction, ensuring a high level of expertise.

The court perspective was presented by District Court Judges Lena Carlberg Johansson and Anna Uppfeldt, both active at Stockholm District Court (which has exclusive jurisdiction over cases of international child abduction). This specialization has proven effective and explains why all such cases in Sweden are now handled within the prescribed six-week timeframe. One issue highlighted by the court is the need for greater specialization among legal counsel. Cases of international child abduction require specific expertise. The court also noted the challenges involved in applying foreign law, which frequently arises in international family law cases.

Annika Kvist, Head of Unit at the Family Law Office in the municipality of Hässleholm, presented the perspective of municipal family law authorities. These authorities are responsible in Sweden for direct contact with the families involved in cases of international child abduction. Annika noted that such cases are complex and that it can be difficult to access the correct information, especially when parallel proceedings are ongoing in multiple countries (which is common). The questions posed by courts to local authorities (e.g., regarding assessments of the child’s best interests) also vary significantly, complicating the work. At the local level, it is often difficult to determine who “owns” the process, as access to all relevant information is often lacking and parallel proceedings are common.

Erica Neiglick, Head of the Swedish Central Authority, presented her perspective on international child abduction cases. The Central Authority (for the Brussels II ter Regulation and the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions) is located within a department of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and works closely with involved actors in such cases. Erica emphasized the importance of having a specialized court in Sweden and noted that meeting the applicable time limits would have been difficult without such specialization. She also pointed out that awareness of the Central Authority’s role is limited (particularly at the local level) and that the Authority would welcome earlier and more frequent involvement in cases. A particular problem area identified concerns so-called “return subject to conditions,” where the receiving state is expected to implement protective measures for a child who is to be returned (cf. Article 27(3) of the Brussels II ter Regulation).

The day concluded with reflective comments from Michael Hellner, Professor at Stockholm University, and Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg, Professor Emerita at Uppsala University.

Comparative Perspective

Day 2 had a comparative approach and included four presentations providing an overview of how international child abduction cases are handled in different countries.

The day began with Ulf Maunsbach (Professor, Lund University) and Lina Rönndahl (Lawyer, Helsing Law Firm, Helsingborg), who gave a brief summary of the situation in Sweden in light of the discussions on Day 1. This was followed by presentations on how such cases are handled in four different countries.

Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Professor, University of Paris-Saclay, Versailles Saint-Quentin) began by presenting the work of the French Central Authority. The French Central Authority in family law matters is a unit within the Directorate of Civil Affairs, which is part of the Ministry of Justice. Compared to the more specialized Swedish authority, it has a broader mandate covering a wide range of international family law issues. The Authority actively coordinates national actors and has a strong focus on facilitating mediation. Cases of international child abduction are primarily handled by the public prosecutor, and the court system is specialized in that 39 courts (out of 167 courts otherwise competent in family law matters at first instance) have jurisdiction in such cases. Fabienne also addressed the specific challenges of taking into account the child’s right to express their views (cf. Article 21 of the Brussels II ter Regulation). She further emphasized the importance of legal networks and cooperation within the EU and globally.

Konrad Duden (Professor, University of Hamburg) presented the German perspective. The German Central Authority is specialized in Hague Convention cases and is part of the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ), which in turn belongs to the Ministry of Justice. The FOJ is a central service authority with a broad range of responsibilities beyond its role as Central Authority. The German Central Authority can initiate proceedings in Germany in cases of international child abduction to Germany and may act as legal representative in such disputes. In Germany, 22 courts have jurisdiction over international child abduction cases, out of approximately 600 courts otherwise competent in family law matters at first instance. Konrad also emphasized existing legal cooperation frameworks such as the European Judicial Network and the Hague Network of Judges.

Marta Pertegas Sender (Professor, Maastricht University) presented the situation in the Netherlands. She noted a downward trend in the number of international child abduction cases. The Dutch Central Authority is specialized in the Brussels II ter Regulation and the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions, and there is a centralized specialized court in The Hague. The Dutch model is both efficient and specialized, operating within a strict six-week schedule that includes communication with parties and explicit attempts at mediation. A specific system for short-term cross-border mediation has been developed (cf. Article 25 of the Brussels II ter Regulation). Marta also highlighted how the child’s interests are taken into account. In the Netherlands, the general rule is that children from the age of 12 are heard, but in cases of international child abduction, the threshold is lowered to 6 years. She emphasized that being a small jurisdiction with a high degree of specialization is advantageous. It is more difficult when children are abducted from the Netherlands, but the Central Authority reports that cooperation with other countries (especially neighbouring ones) works very well. Naturally, cooperation becomes more challenging with more distant countries, and particularly with countries not party to the 1980 Hague Convention.

Kristine Kirkegaard (Central Authority, Copenhagen) presented the Danish perspective. Denmark is of particular interest in this context since the Brussels II ter Regulation does not apply. Denmark has a specialized Central Authority handling cases under the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions, including international child abduction. The Central Authority is part of the National Social Appeals Board, which is an independent body within the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Authority can initiate proceedings on behalf of an applicant. Cases of international child abduction are brought before ordinary courts, and there is no specialization in their adjudication. All courts of first instance therefore have jurisdiction to hear such cases.

Day 2 concluded with a joint discussion. A general conclusion was that the system of Central Authorities (established by the 1980 Hague Convention) works very well, and that problems that arise often relate to failures in communication between the involved parties. Central Authorities can play an important role here, but this depends on their involvement at an early stage. This, in turn, requires that local authorities (which are often the first to become aware of such cases) are aware that the Central Authority can provide assistance. The most important conclusion of the conference was the need to establish effective communication channels between the actors involved. International family law cases often involve multiple actors, and there is a significant risk that matters are handled in silos in a way that undermines legal certainty and efficiency which is certainly not in the best interests of the children involved. It is therefore not surprising that the general perception was that the conference was highly valuable, not least because it allowed participants to meet and establish contacts.

The conference can thus be seen as confirmation that networks such as SNIF are needed. For further information about the network, please contact its coordinators, lawyer Lina Rönndahl (lina@advokathelsing.se) or Ulf Maunsbach (ulf.maunsbach@jur.lu.se).