Vill vuxna veta vad barnen tycker? : En undersökning om hur barnets åsikt kommer fram och påverkar familjerättens bedömning och tingsrättens dom i vårdnads, boende- och umgängestvister
The main purpose of this essay was to study how the child's own view appeared in the office of family law investigations and in the following municipal court verdicts and if it had influenced the judgement and the verdict. We wanted to see if the child's age was important for the possibility to make oneself heard and if there had been changes overtime related to the consideration to the child's own view in investigations- and court context.

To obtain answers to the questions, we decided to execute a qualitative case study, which exclusively was based on document analyses. We selected to examine a middle-sized municipal in the southern part of Sweden. We concerned only for children in the age of 8-12 years, who was affected by a court verdict either 1999 or 2003.

Our study showed, among other things, that the majority of all children were interviewed. It also showed that the age of the children didn't affect the consideration the court took to the child's opinion. We compared the results from the two different years and found a striking change. It showed that the verdicts from the court from 2003 almost completely corresponded with the child's own view in almost all cases, while only the half of the verdicts from the court from 1999 corresponded with the child's view.
Barns deltagande i familjerättsliga processer
The dissertation contains an analysis of children’s right to participate in legal proceedings that concern the child personally in Swedish law and according to the international undertakings that S ...
Understanding the broader implications of strategic evidence disclosure in police interviews with suspects
Police around the world present evidence to suspects at different points during the interview. Some psychologists suggest that police should strategically delay disclosing evidence and test the truthfulness of a suspect’s account by comparing it with the evidence. Moreover, psychologists suggest interviewers who plan strategic evidence disclosure might be less guilt-presumptive about the suspect because they must consider alternative explanations of the evidence as part of their planning. In contrast, many lawyers argue that police should not strategically disclose evidence as it undermines a suspect’s fair trial rights and prevents lawyers from advising suspects effectively before the interview. 
 
To address these conflicting perspectives from the domains of psychology and law, this thesis takes an interdisciplinary approach and considers strategic evidence disclosure within the broader legal context of a suspect’s custodial detention. First, a field study of police disclosure briefings with lawyers, lawyer-client consultations, and police interviews, and a survey of lawyers highlights how lawyers rely upon the police’s evidence to advise suspects in custody. When police strategically disclose evidence, lawyers cannot provide informed legal advice and tend to advise suspects to not answer police questions. Second, three experiments and a mini meta-analysis show that generating alternative evidential explanations for criminal cases, as interviewers planning strategic evidence disclosure might do, has a very small effect, or plausibly no effect, on people’s beliefs about the suspect’s guilt. Finally, a mock crime experiment shows that, even two months after a crime, truthful suspects’ accounts fit evidence that was strategically withheld more than deceptive suspects’ accounts did. Independent laypeople from a follow-up experiment could distinguish between these truthful and deceptive accounts. Together, these findings suggest that strategic evidence disclosure could help deception detection even months after a crime, but it also impinges upon suspects’ legal rights and is unlikely to make interviewers less guilt-presumptive.