The case concerns a child who, after the parents divorced, remained registered in the population register at the address of the home in which the family had previously resided together (the original residence). The district court then decided that the child would permanently reside with the father, i.e. that he would be the so-called custodial parent. The court further decided on contact between the child and the mother according to which the child, as previously, shall in practice reside half of the time with each parent. The lower instances considered that the child should continue to be registered at the address of the original residence.
The Supreme Administrative Court found that children who have parents who do not reside together will often have double residence, i.e. be deemed to reside with both parents notwithstanding that they reside at different addresses. The child's registration shall then be determined on the basis of what, taking into account all circumstances, may be deemed to be his or her actual residence.
The court further found that the decision regarding which of the parents shall be the custodial parent in the present case weighed more heavily than the the reasons that suggested that the child should continue to be registered at the address of the original residence. The court therefore decided that the child should be registered at the father's address.
Read the judgment here: