Compulsory custody of children under the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act (1990:52, LVU) is one of the most intrusive measures that the state, through social authorities, can take. Section 21 LVU underwent a reform that came into effect on July 1, 2022, to strengthen the child's perspective. The amendment stipulates that the social services committee cannot decide to terminate care until the circumstances that led to the placement have changed in a lasting and comprehensive manner. The proposal applies to children in care according to Section 2 LVU.  The purpose of the thesis has been to analyze how the principle of the best interest of the child is applied in balancing the interests between the child's right to protection and the right to family life in matters of terminating compulsory care according to the LVU. The legal dogmatic method has been used to analyze and critically examine existing legislation. The method is applied to interpret, systematize, and describe the content of existing law based on the various elements of legal source doctrine.  In assessing whether care under LVU should be terminated, a complex balancing of interests often arises between the child's right to protection and the right to family life. The principle of the child's best interests is not defined but it is evident from Section 1, paragraph 5, LVU that in decisions under LVU, what is best for the child should be decisive. In a balancing of interests between the principle of the child's best interests and the right to family life, precedence should be given to what is best for the child. In cases of terminating compulsory care, the assessment of the child's best interests leads to a decision on whether the child should either continue to be placed in the family home or be reunited with their biological family.  The conclusion regarding the amendment to Section 21 LVU cannot be answered due to the novelty of the legislation. It is positive to codify previous practices to emphasize the importance of not terminating care until it is safe for the child. However, the amendment can be criticized for not having changed sufficiently, as it provides significant interpretative leeway that may contribute to difficulties in its application.