The purpose of this study is to describe and understand how the principle of the child’s best interest in the asylum process for families with children is interpreted and implemented in practice by the asylum bureaucrats at the Swedish Migration Agency. Our questions are: “How is the best interest of the child in families with children interpreted by the asylum bureaucrats at the Swedish Migration Agency?” "How are asylum bureaucrats at the Swedish Migration Agency reasoning about the implementation in practice of the child's best interest in families with children? The essay rests upon semi-structured interviews with eight asylum bureaucrats at three different asylum units. The interviews are based on an interview guide together with a vignette, which purpose was to see how the interviewees are implementing the best interest of the child in a specific case of a potential application. We are analyzing our results by using Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucrats and their professional discretion. We are also using Roine Johansson’s (2007) interpretation of Lipsky and Svensson et al., (2008) and their perspectives about professional discretion. Our main findings and conclusions in the study are showing that the asylum bureaucrats interpretations of the best interest of the child are statutory. According to the asylum bureaucrats, the main definition of the principle is related to the importance of talking with the children. These statements in the interviews also reflects how they look upon the implementation in practice of the child's best interest. The asylum bureaucrats felt they have a wide discretion in their everyday work.