The goal of this study was to investigate and create understanding for how the best interest of the child is justified and interpreted and also what kind of space children have to be participating and say their opinion. This is because of the lack of direct guidelines in the legal framework that affects the work with children. This study was based on a qualitative study in the form of a document study of district court cases regarding contact or visitation with a parent. This has been analyzed with a reflexive thematic analysis where there were patterns regarding the reasoning of the district court, consequences for the children, the construction of children's voice, and right of interpretation. The results showed that children's agency differs, often it is the social workers or the parents that express the children's opinions as a fact and not themselves, it also shows how different the district courts motivate case to case of what is in the children’s best interests. Even if previous research and theories support that children should be given the opportunity to participate in situations concerning themselves the result show that it is a complex area, as there are no direct guidelines and the law is left to the discretion of decision-makers to interpret.