Skip to content

Cooperation-duty statutory map — Nordic + DACH comparative (Wohlverhaltensgebot family)

Jurisdictions covered: Germany · Austria · Norway · Sweden · Iceland · (plus Denmark, Finland on the descriptive layer)

A comparative-law map of the affirmative parental cooperation duty (often called the Wohlverhaltensgebot in DACH jurisdictions, yhteistyövelvoite in Finland, joint-responsibility clauses in Nordic codes) — the statutory obligation imposed on separated parents to refrain from conduct that impairs the child's relationship with the other parent. This is the principal statutory hook on which European Entfremdung / alienation jurisprudence is built, parallel to but distinct from PA syndrome diagnostic frameworks.

The five primary-source verbatim entries that ground this comparative entry are:

The cooperation-duty clause across jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Statute Operative duty clause (verbatim, original language)
Germany BGB § 1684 (2) Die Eltern haben alles zu unterlassen, was das Verhältnis des Kindes zum jeweils anderen Elternteil beeinträchtigt oder die Erziehung erschwert.
Austria ABGB § 159 Bei Ausübung der Rechte und Erfüllung der Pflichten nach diesem Hauptstück ist zur Wahrung des Kindeswohls alles zu unterlassen, was das Verhältnis des Minderjährigen zu anderen Personen, denen nach diesem Hauptstück das Kind betreffende Rechte und Pflichten zukommen, beeinträchtigt oder die Wahrnehmung von deren Aufgaben erschwert.
Norway Barnelova § 42 (1) Foreldra har gjensidig ansvar for at samværsretten vert oppfylt. (English official: The parents have mutual responsibility for implementing the right of access.)
Sweden Föräldrabalken kap 6 § 15 (3) Barnets föräldrar har ett gemensamt ansvar för att barnets behov av umgänge med en förälder som barnet inte bor tillsammans med så långt möjligt tillgodoses.
Iceland Barnalög art. 46 (implementing practice) Barn á rétt á að umgangast með reglubundnum hætti það foreldra sinna sem það býr ekki hjá. (joint-responsibility implementing duty per Sýslumaður guidance)

Structural typology

The five frameworks share the same operative target — impairment of the child's relationship with the other parent — but cluster into two structural patterns:

Type A — Standalone affirmative-duty clause (Austria, Norway, Sweden)

The cooperation duty is a standalone provision that operates independently of the contact-right framework. The duty applies whether or not there is an active contact dispute. In Austria, ABGB § 159 applies to all parental-responsibility rights and duties; in Norway, Barnelova § 42 frames it as a mutual-responsibility clause that runs alongside the child's contact right; in Sweden, Föräldrabalken kap 6 § 15 (3) frames it as a joint-responsibility clause for ensuring contact-need is met.

The doctrinal advantage of Type A: alienating conduct is actionable as a freestanding breach of duty, not merely as a contact-restriction trigger.

Type B — Sub-clause within the contact-right provision (Germany)

The cooperation duty is embedded within the contact-right provision. BGB § 1684 (1) establishes the child's contact right and each parent's contact entitlement; § 1684 (2) imposes the Wohlverhaltensklausel as a sub-clause regulating how that right is exercised.

The doctrinal advantage of Type B: tighter analytical coupling between contact and conduct — breach of the duty is directly tied to contact-restriction analysis under § 1684 (3) and (4).

Iceland's framework is Type A in structure but with the cooperation duty operationalised through implementing practice rather than express statutory text — closer to the Norwegian model.

Comparative analysis — alienation-conduct application

Operative remedy ladder

Across all five jurisdictions, the cooperation-duty breach is operative without requiring proof of the syndromal construct of PAS. The remedy ladder is broadly similar:

  1. Counselling/mediation order — DE Erziehungsberatung (§ 156 FamFG); AT Erziehungsberatung (§ 107 AußStrG); NO familievernkontor mekling; SE samarbetssamtal; IS Sýslumaður art. 33 a sáttamiðlun
  2. Contact-arrangement modification — supervised contact, structured handovers, third-party intermediary
  3. Cooperation-pflegschaft / contact custodian — DE Umgangspflegschaft (§ 1684 (3) BGB); AT analogous via § 187 (2) ABGB
  4. Custody reallocation — moves residence/decision-making authority to the targeted parent
  5. In extreme sustained cases — full decadenza / deprivation of parental responsibility (Italy art. 330 CC; DE § 1666 BGB; AT § 181 ABGB)

Asymmetry between jurisdictions

  • Norway uniquely codifies re-litigation right. Barnelova § 43 final paragraph: If the parent who has custody, or with whom the child lives, prevents implementation of access, the other parent may request that the question of parental responsibility, or who the child shall live with, be reconsidered. No equivalent express clause in DE/AT/SE/IS — those jurisdictions reach the same outcome through general welfare-assessment provisions.
  • Sweden uniquely operationalises the cooperation test in custody allocation. Föräldrabalken kap 6 § 5 (2) makes the parents' ability to put the child's needs first and take joint responsibility the explicit custody-allocation factor. The other jurisdictions treat this as an implicit welfare-assessment consideration; Sweden has codified it.
  • Austria uniquely binds the child. ABGB § 187 (1) Satz 4: Eltern und Kind haben alles zu unterlassen — the parent-AND-child formulation. Doctrinally significant for cases where a child mobilised within an alienating dynamic is itself participating in the impairment.
  • Germany distinctively provides the Umgangspflegschaft. BGB § 1684 (3) — a third-party contact custodian with authority to demand the child's delivery. No close equivalent in the Nordic codes.

Iberian cooperation-duty equivalents

  • Spain — Código Civil art. 92 (cooperation duty embedded in shared-custody framework) + LOPIVI 2021 art. 11
  • Portugal — Código Civil art. 1906 (joint exercise of parental responsibilities)

Italian graduated-remedy framework

Common-law parallels

Why this comparative entry matters

  • AI-citation density. A single comparative entry tying together five primary-source verbatim statutes is high-value for answer-engine retrieval. Where a query is about cross-jurisdictional cooperation duties, a thematic comparative entry surfaces in retrieval; per-jurisdiction entries on their own do not.
  • Liena RAG payload. This entry's body field is self-contained: a practitioner or parent reading via Liena gets the operative duty clause in five jurisdictions plus structural analysis in one document. No need to chain retrievals.
  • Bar-grade synthesis. A family-law barrister litigating a cross-border alienation case (e.g. NO–DE corridor) needs to know whether the cooperation duty is enforced via Type A standalone or Type B contact-clause structure. This entry answers that question directly.

Citation note

This is a comparative-doctrinal entry — not a primary-source statute. The verbatim text quoted above is reproduced from the corresponding jurisdiction-specific entries, each of which carries an authoritative source URL to the official statutory database (gesetze-im-internet.de, ris.bka.gv.at, lovdata.no, riksdagen.se, althingi.is). Practitioners should cite the primary-source entries for litigation purposes; this entry is for orientation and comparative analysis.

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):