Skip to content

Comparative-doctrinal layer — index and navigation

The comparative/ pseudo-jurisdiction in this corpus contains a nine-entry comparative-doctrinal layer that maps cross-jurisdictional doctrinal questions in parental alienation litigation. Each entry aggregates the primary-source coverage in the per-jurisdiction entries into a structured cross-jurisdictional analysis.

The nine entries cluster around the four operational dimensions of PA litigation: (1) the affirmative duty layer, (2) the enforcement layer, (3) the procedural-rights layer, (4) the cross-jurisdictional layer.

Layer 1 — Affirmative-duty layer (what the parents must do)

  • Cooperation-duty statutory map — Nordic + DACH — verbatim quote table from BGB § 1684 (DE), ABGB § 159 (AT), Barnelova § 42 (NO), Föräldrabalken kap 6 § 15 (SE), Barnalög art. 46 (IS). Type A standalone duty vs Type B contact-sub-clause structure.

Layer 2 — Enforcement layer (what happens when the duty is breached)

  • Graduated-remedy ladder — IT/DE/AT/UK — 6-tier comparative matrix (counselling → contact mod → contact custodian → intermediate → custody change → deprivation → rehab) across four jurisdictions
  • Enforcement of contact orders — 11-jurisdiction enforcement-mechanism matrix; five-pattern typology (financial / third-party / custody-reallocation / committal / criminal)

Layer 3 — Procedural-rights layer (how the system hears and decides)

  • Child's voice age thresholds — fixed-age (IT/DE/NO/IS/ES) vs capacity-based (SE/UK) hearing frameworks; autonomy / welfare-mediated / constitutional approach analysis
  • Expert evidence admissibility — adversarial common-law (Daubert/Frye/SJE) vs inquisitorial civil-law (CTU/Sachverständiger); German Mindestanforderungen + Italian CTU+CTP pattern
  • Therapeutic intervention paradigms — integrated (Cochem) vs separate-track (US reunification programs) vs hybrid; mediation, counselling, residential programs

Layer 4 — Cross-jurisdictional layer (cross-border + recognition)

  • Cross-border PA — Hague + Brussels — Hague 1980 + Hague 1996 + Brussels IIb intersection; Art. 13 (b) grave-risk defense pattern
  • PA recognition-status taxonomy — Group A (statutory codification BR/MX) / B (functional DE/AT/IT/ES/FR/etc) / C (syndromal via expert US/CA/AU/NZ) / D (express caution IT/ES/CoE/ECHR) / E (no formal)

Cross-cutting — the most-sensitive doctrinal area

  • DV-PA bidirectionality — Pattern A (genuine DV protection) vs Pattern B (weaponised allegations) analysis; UK DAA 2021 model + Brazilian Lei 14.713/2023; evidential-distinguishing indicia
Jurisdiction Appears in entries
Germany Cooperation-duty · Graduated-remedy · Child's voice · Expert evidence · Therapeutic · Enforcement · Recognition
Austria Cooperation-duty · Graduated-remedy · Child's voice · Expert evidence · Therapeutic · Enforcement · Recognition
Italy Cooperation-duty (cross-ref) · Graduated-remedy · Child's voice · Expert evidence · Therapeutic · Enforcement · Recognition · DV-PA
Spain Cooperation-duty (cross-ref) · Child's voice · Expert evidence · Therapeutic · Enforcement · Recognition · DV-PA
France Cross-ref across most entries; Enforcement (astreintes + criminal); Therapeutic (espace de rencontre)
Belgium Recognition · Enforcement (criminal art. 432)
UK Graduated-remedy · Child's voice · Expert evidence · Therapeutic · Enforcement · Recognition · DV-PA · Cross-border
US Expert evidence · Therapeutic (Family Bridges) · Enforcement · Recognition
Canada Expert evidence · Therapeutic · Recognition
Australia Expert evidence · Therapeutic · Enforcement · Recognition · DV-PA
New Zealand Expert evidence · Recognition
Norway Cooperation-duty · Child's voice · Therapeutic · Enforcement · Recognition
Sweden Cooperation-duty · Child's voice · Therapeutic · Enforcement · Recognition
Iceland Cooperation-duty · Child's voice · Therapeutic · Recognition
Brazil Recognition (statutory codification) · DV-PA (bidirectional-risk legislation)
Mexico Recognition (statutory codification)
EU (Brussels IIb) Cross-border · Recognition
ECHR Cross-border · Recognition (Group D express caution)

Use-case navigation

"I am a targeted parent in [jurisdiction] — what are my options?"

  1. Read the jurisdiction-specific primary-source entry for your country
  2. Read the Graduated-remedy ladder + Enforcement comparative entries
  3. Identify your jurisdiction's position in the structural typology
  4. Engage practitioner-guidance in the relevant comparative entry

"I have a cross-border case — where do I litigate?"

  1. Read the Cross-border PA comparative entry
  2. Identify whether the Hague 1980 / Hague 1996 / Brussels IIb framework applies
  3. Read both jurisdiction-specific entries for the involved States
  4. Read the PA recognition-status taxonomy to understand each jurisdiction's framework

"I am facing DV allegations in a contested case — what is the framework?"

  1. Read the DV-PA bidirectionality comparative entry
  2. Read the jurisdiction-specific DV-statutory entry (e.g. UK DAA 2021, Brazil Lei 14.713/2023)
  3. Engage the practitioner guidance in the bidirectionality entry

"I need expert evidence on alienating conduct — what is the framework?"

  1. Read the Expert evidence admissibility comparative entry
  2. Identify whether your jurisdiction is adversarial (common-law) or inquisitorial (civil-law)
  3. For common-law: engage the relevant admissibility test (Daubert / Mohan / Re T)
  4. For civil-law: engage the CTU / Sachverständiger / equipo psicosocial framework

"I need therapeutic intervention ordered — what is the framework?"

  1. Read the Therapeutic intervention paradigms comparative entry
  2. Identify your jurisdiction's structural type
  3. Engage the relevant pathway (Cochem-pattern, reunification program, hybrid)

Why this index entry matters

The comparative-doctrinal layer is structurally distinct from the per-jurisdiction primary-source entries. The two layers serve different functions:

  • Per-jurisdiction entries provide the verbatim primary-source text and jurisdiction-specific analysis. These are the citable authorities.
  • Comparative entries aggregate cross-jurisdictional analysis. These are the orientation and strategy tools.

A practitioner litigating a PA case typically engages both layers: the comparative entry first (for orientation), then the per-jurisdiction entries (for citable authority). This index entry provides structured navigation between them.

Citation note

This index entry serves as a navigation aid. For substantive analysis, see the linked comparative entries. For citable authority, see the per-jurisdiction primary-source entries referenced within each comparative entry.

The comparative-doctrinal layer is constructed by the AntiAlienate knowledge engine and should not be cited as primary authority in litigation. Practitioners should cite the per-jurisdiction entries (which themselves cite the underlying statutory and jurisprudential sources).

Sources & authoritative references

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):