Long divorce delays can shape where children live

Long delays in divorce cases can influence where children live, DR reports, as lawyers warn that waiting times may undermine legal certainty and affect court decisions.

In Ragnar Dixen’s case, it took 578 days for a final decision on where his children should live. The Family Law Agency, which helps families dealing with divorce disputes, spent 225 days processing his application. A further 217 days passed before a district court ruled that the children should live with him, citing in part his greater willingness to cooperate.

“I was happy and felt that I had been heard and seen. But I was afraid to be too happy, because I knew the case could be appealed,” Dixen said.

The children’s mother appealed. They remained with her for another 136 days before the case went to the High Court, which ruled that they should primarily live with her. The decision noted that she had been their main caregiver since the divorce.

Throughout the case, Dixen saw the children for only a few hours a week because their mother opposed contact. He said the long process caused him stress and depression, and that he had to close his business.

“When the children have spent almost all their time with one parent for a year and a half, it is clear they will have a stronger attachment to that parent,” said Dixen, who is also a municipal councillor in Silkeborg.

Asked whether its processing time affected the outcome, the Family Law Agency said it does not comment on individual cases. It said it works to move cases to the courts quickly when necessary, but that parents often submit new information during proceedings, which must be examined. The agency said Dixen’s case was complex and extensive, with many applications and details to investigate. It also apologised for the delays, citing summer holidays and a heavy caseload.

The agency handles disputes between divorcing parents, including questions of where children live and contact arrangements. In high-conflict cases, including those involving possible violence, substance abuse or mental illness, it processes the case first before sending it to the Family Court for a final decision.

Helle Brandt, chair of the Danish Association of Family Lawyers, said delays can effectively influence where children live. A court may decide that a child should remain with a parent because they have already lived there for several months, even if another arrangement was initially considered best, she said.

“That is a huge problem for legal certainty,” Brandt said.

Mette Fuglsang Mortensen, president of the District Court in Hjørring, agreed that processing times can affect cases. Children can settle into everyday life with one parent, and contact with the other may cease, meaning it has to be rebuilt, she said. However, she said it was impossible to know whether rulings would have been different if cases had been handled more quickly.

The National Audit Office has previously criticised the Family Law Agency, saying cases sit idle for about half of their processing time.

Dixen said the delays had badly damaged his trust in the justice system. He acknowledged that moving the children to live with him now would be a major upheaval, but said the wait itself had changed their lives in a way that could be difficult to reverse.

“I put my whole life on hold because I thought that tomorrow there might be a chance to have the children back home. The problem is that families fall apart, and my children have been without their father for a year and a half,” he said.

The children’s mother declined to be interviewed. In a written statement to DR, she agreed that the lengthy process had not helped the conflict, but said the case was not as simple as Dixen described. She added that the High Court’s decision was not based solely on the time the case took.

The total waiting time at the Family Law Agency is not known. The agency says that this year it has taken an average of three months to process applications in difficult divorce cases under sections 6 and 7.