Brazil Child Support Laws: How Support Is Collected Between Brazil and Another Country

Published November 5, 2026. Also available in Spanish.

In short. Yes, Brazil has child support: Brazilian law sets it in proportion to the child's needs and the paying parent's means. This page is about the harder question — what happens when the parent who pays and the child who receives live in different countries. Between Brazil and the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Norway and a growing list of countries, the answer is the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention, run in Brazil by the Ministry of Justice. With countries outside it, the older New York Convention of 1956 or the Inter-American Convention of 1989 may apply, and without any treaty a foreign order still needs to be recognized by Brazil's Superior Court of Justice before it can be enforced here.

This article reads the texts behind the questions a parent abroad types about child support and Brazil, as I read them on November 5, 2026: the 2007 Convention in its authentic English text at the Hague Conference and as promulgated in Brazil by Decree 9,176/2017; the Conference's status table, Brazil's and the United States' reservations and declarations, and the table of Canadian provinces; the 1956 New York Convention as promulgated by Decree 56,826/1965 and its status at the United Nations; the 1989 Inter-American Convention on Support Obligations and its signatures at the Organization of American States; the Ministry of Justice's pages on international child support; the joint ordinance of the Ministry and the Federal Public Defender's Office of 2019; Law 5,478/1968; and the Constitution, the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure. It does not cover how a Brazilian judge sets the amount in an ordinary case, nor the law of any other country.

Brazil child support laws, in one answer

Brazil has child support. Under the Civil Code it is fixed in proportion to the needs of the person who claims it and the resources of the person who pays (article 1,694, § 1), and it can be changed when either side's finances change (article 1,699). A Brazilian court can hear a support claim when the child or other creditor lives in Brazil, or when the parent sued has property, income or other economic ties here (Code of Civil Procedure, article 22, I).

Between countries, the main instrument is the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support, in force for Brazil since November 1, 2017. Applications go from the Central Authority of the country where the applicant lives to the Central Authority of the other country; in Brazil that authority is the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, through its Department of Asset Recovery and International Legal Cooperation (DRCI) — not the Federal Prosecutor-General's Office. For a child under 21, the country that receives the application must, as a rule, provide free legal assistance (article 15).

With a country outside the Hague system, the 1956 New York Convention runs through the Federal Prosecutor-General's Office, and the 1989 Inter-American Convention through the Ministry of Justice; the United States is party to neither. Whatever the route, enforcement follows the law of the country where the debtor's money is: a Brazilian creditor collecting in the United States gets American enforcement tools, and a foreign order recognized in Brazil is enforced under Brazilian rules.

The rest of this page takes each piece to its text: which instrument applies between Brazil and your country, how a case runs in each direction, what a foreign order needs to work in Brazil, how Brazil enforces support, the special points with the United States, costs and translations, and changing an order when one parent lives abroad.

Does Brazil have child support?

It does, and it is enforced with tools that can reach the debtor's liberty. Under the Civil Code, relatives, spouses and partners may claim from one another the support they need to live in a manner compatible with their social condition, including for education (article 1,694), and the duty between parents and children runs both ways (article 1,696). The amount follows one rule, in the Code's own words: “Os alimentos devem ser fixados na proporção das necessidades do reclamante e dos recursos da pessoa obrigada.” — support is set in proportion to the needs of the claimant and the resources of the person who pays (article 1,694, § 1). The Code sets no percentage of income; when either side's financial situation changes, the parent who pays or the one who receives may ask the judge to discharge, reduce or increase it (article 1,699). The same Code governs support for a child whose parents were never married.

For a family split between countries, the first question is often whether a Brazilian court can hear the case at all. The Code of Civil Procedure gives Brazilian courts jurisdiction over support claims when “a) o credor tiver domicílio ou residência no Brasil; b) o réu mantiver vínculos no Brasil, tais como posse ou propriedade de bens, recebimento de renda ou obtenção de benefícios econômicos” — when the creditor is domiciled or resident in Brazil, or the defendant keeps ties in Brazil, such as owning property, receiving income or obtaining economic benefits (article 22, I). So a mother in São Paulo can sue a father who lives in Texas in a Brazilian court, and a parent abroad can sue in Brazil a parent who lives here or earns rent here. Whether the resulting decision will work in the other country is a separate question, and the treaties answer it.

The rules on custody, alimony between spouses and support in a Brazilian divorce are in my article on divorce in Brazil. This page deals with what happens when the two sides of the obligation are in different countries.

Which instrument applies between Brazil and your country

Brazil is party to three multilateral instruments specific to support across borders, and the Ministry of Justice says the choice depends on the destination country, the stage of any court case, whether a decision already exists, and the strategy of the person concerned. The Ministry also points, for recognition and enforcement with Mercosur countries, to the regional agreements on judicial assistance in civil matters (Decrees 2,067/1996 and 6,891/2009). The three specific instruments are:

• The 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, ratified by Brazil on July 17, 2017. Decree 9,176/2017 records that the instruments “entrarão em vigor para a República Federativa do Brasil, no plano jurídico externo, em 1º de novembro de 2017” — would enter into force for Brazil on November 1, 2017 — and the Hague Conference's table shows the same date. The same Decree also promulgated the 2007 Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations.
• The 1956 New York Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, signed by Brazil on December 31, 1956, ratified on November 14, 1960 according to the United Nations' status page, and promulgated by Decree 56,826/1965.
• The 1989 Inter-American Convention on Support Obligations, ratified by Brazil (instrument deposited on July 11, 1997, in force for Brazil from August 11, 1997) and promulgated by Decree 2,428/1997.

Where a country is party to both the Hague Convention and the New York Convention, the Hague text settles the overlap in article 49:

In relations between the Contracting States, this Convention replaces the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance of 20 June 1956, in so far as its scope of application as between such States coincides with the scope of application of this Convention.

The Ministry of Justice applies it that way and lists the countries — Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, Norway and others — whose cases moved from the New York route to the Hague route. A country that joined the Hague Convention after Brazil is bound with Brazil from the date the Convention entered into force for that country; the table below takes the dates from the Hague Conference's status table, last updated on September 16, 2026, which counts 57 Contracting Parties.

Two cautions on the table. For Canada, the Hague Conference's page states that a province or territory not mentioned in its table of extensions is not (yet) covered; the Ministry of Justice's page still lists only British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario. And a few countries joined the Hague Convention by accession, which takes effect only with the States that did not object within twelve months (article 58(5)); for any country not in the table, the status table at the Hague Conference is the place to check, together with the reservations each country made.

The 2007 Hague Convention: what it covers and who runs it in Brazil

The Convention applies, first, “to maintenance obligations arising from a parent-child relationship towards a person under the age of 21 years” (article 2(1)(a)) — to support owed by a parent to a child under 21, whatever the marital status of the parents (article 2(4)). A State may reserve the right to limit that to children under 18 (article 2(2)); Brazil did not, and neither did the United States. For spousal support, it applies to recognition and enforcement when the application comes with a claim for a child (article 2(1)(b)), and otherwise without its chapters on administrative co-operation and on applications through Central Authorities (article 2(1)(c)). Brazil declared that it extends the whole Convention to maintenance arising from kinship in the direct and collateral lines, marriage or affinity, including obligations towards vulnerable persons (article 2(3)); such an extension binds two States only in so far as their declarations coincide.

In Brazil, the Ministry of Justice describes its role this way:

Os pedidos tramitam pelo Ministério da Justiça, Autoridade Central para a Convenção, papel exercido por intermédio do Departamento de Recuperação de Ativos e Cooperação Jurídica Internacional (DRCI), da Secretaria Nacional de Justiça.

Applications are handled by the Ministry of Justice, the Central Authority for the Convention, a role carried out through the Department of Asset Recovery and International Legal Cooperation (DRCI) of the National Secretariat of Justice.

The Ministry's page gives the contact for questions, alimentos@mj.gov.br, and says that Brazilian applications are filed with the DRCI electronically, with the translation into the official language of the requested State. The Organization of American States' records show the same Department as Brazil's Central Authority for the Inter-American Convention since 2016.

The route of every application is set by article 9:

An application under this Chapter shall be made through the Central Authority of the Contracting State in which the applicant resides to the Central Authority of the requested State. For the purpose of this provision, residence excludes mere presence.

So a parent in the United States does not write to the Brazilian Ministry; they go to the American child support system, which sends the case to Brazil. A parent in Brazil goes to the DRCI, which sends it abroad. The applications available to a creditor are listed in article 10: recognition, or recognition and enforcement, of an existing decision; enforcement of a decision made or recognized in the requested State; establishment of a decision where none exists, including parentage where necessary; establishment of a decision where recognition and enforcement of an existing one is not possible, or is refused, for lack of a basis under article 20 or on the grounds of article 22(b) or (e) (article 10(1)(d)); and modification of a decision. The Ministry's page explains which form goes with each one and adds that, to locate a person abroad before claiming support, a request for specific measures can be sent by e-mail with the child's birth certificate and the full name and date of birth of the person to be located.

Brazil made two reservations, both shown in the Hague Conference's table. The one that matters most to foreign parents is to article 30(8): “Brazil does not recognize or enforce a maintenance arrangement containing provisions regarding minors, incapacitated adults and elderly persons”. A settlement concluded before or approved by a judicial or administrative authority is a “decision” under article 19(1), and Brazil's reservation does not reach it. What Brazil refuses is the maintenance arrangement: an agreement drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument, or authenticated, registered or filed with a competent authority and that may be the subject of review and modification by a competent authority — a notarial deed, for instance — without a judicial or administrative authority having approved it. A purely private agreement is neither a decision nor an arrangement under the Convention and is not recognized as such; the creditor can still apply, through the Central Authorities, for a decision to be established (article 10(1)(c)). The other reservation, to article 20(1)(e), concerns written agreements on jurisdiction, which article 20 already excludes in child support disputes; Brazil's reservation extends that exclusion to support for incapacitated adults and elderly persons.

The paying parent lives in Brazil: how a case runs

When the application reaches Brazil through the Hague Convention, a joint ordinance of the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Public Defender's Office (Joint Ordinance SNJ/DPU No. 1/2019) sets the path. The DRCI receives the request, checks the documents and asks the foreign Central Authority for corrections if needed; if the debtor's address is unknown, it tries to locate it with the tools it has access to (article 3, §§ 1 and 2). It then notifies the debtor of the claim, “a fim de que informe, no prazo de até 10 dias após o recebimento, se há possibilidade e interesse em uma composição amigável” — so that, within up to 10 days of receipt, the debtor says whether an amicable settlement is possible and of interest (article 3, § 3) — and tries to obtain voluntary payment, with volunteer mediators if needed (§ 4). If there is no agreement, or no answer, the case goes to the Federal Public Defender's Office, which acts as the public body designated under article 6(3) of the Convention and takes the case to court; an agreement reached is sent to the same Office to be submitted to a court for approval (article 3, §§ 5 and 6, and article 4). The Defender's Office reports to the DRCI within 30 days on the steps taken and at least every 60 days on the court case (article 4, §§ 1 and 3).

Under the New York Convention the Brazilian side is different. Law 5,478/1968 gives jurisdiction over those claims to “o juízo federal da Capital da Unidade Federativa Brasileira em que reside o devedor, sendo considerada instituição intermediária, para os fins dos referidos decretos, a Procuradoria-Geral da República” — the federal court of the capital of the Brazilian state where the debtor lives, with the Federal Prosecutor-General's Office as the intermediary institution (article 26). The Ministry of Justice repeats the point on its Hague page:

os pedidos que permaneçam abrangidos pela Convenção de Nova York devem continuar a ser enviados à Procuradoria-Geral da República (PGR), a qual exerce papel análogo ao de Autoridade Central para este tratado.

Requests that remain covered by the New York Convention must continue to be sent to the Federal Prosecutor-General's Office (PGR), which plays a role analogous to that of a Central Authority for that treaty.

The distinction matters because the two offices are often confused: the Prosecutor-General's Office is the channel for the 1956 New York Convention only. For the Hague Convention — and therefore for every case with the United States — the Central Authority is the Ministry of Justice.

A parent abroad does not have to use any of the treaties. The Hague Convention keeps open the direct route to a court where the internal law of the State allows it (article 37), and Brazilian law allows it: with a Brazilian lawyer, a creditor can sue for support in Brazil under article 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or ask the Superior Court of Justice to recognize an existing foreign order and then enforce it. The treaty route gives free legal assistance for a child under 21, as a rule (article 15), although translation may be charged (article 45(3)); the direct route is run by a lawyer the parent hires, and costs fall on the parent unless the court grants free justice, which Brazilian law extends to foreigners without means (Code of Civil Procedure, article 98).

A foreign child support order in Brazil: recognition by the Superior Court of Justice

The general rule is in the Code of Civil Procedure:

A decisão estrangeira somente terá eficácia no Brasil após a homologação de sentença estrangeira ou a concessão do exequatur às cartas rogatórias, salvo disposição em sentido contrário de lei ou tratado.

A foreign decision only takes effect in Brazil after the homologation of the foreign judgment or the grant of exequatur to letters rogatory, unless a law or treaty provides otherwise. (Article 961)

Homologation is the decision of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that recognizes the foreign judgment; the Constitution gives the STJ that power (article 105, I, i). The Court checks the requirements of article 963 — a competent authority, proper service even if the defendant defaulted, effectiveness in the country of origin, no conflict with a final Brazilian judgment, an official translation unless a treaty dispenses with it, and no manifest offence to public policy. Partial homologation is possible (article 961, § 2), and the Court may grant urgent measures and provisional enforcement while the case is pending (§ 3). The procedure is the one I describe in my article on enforcing foreign judgments in Brazil.

The Hague Convention leaves the recognition procedure to the law of the State addressed (article 23(1)), within limits: the Convention lists the bases on which a decision must be recognized (article 20), the only grounds on which it may be refused (article 22 — public policy, fraud in procedure, a pending earlier case or an incompatible decision between the same parties, lack of notice to a defendant who did not appear, and a decision made in breach of article 18) and the documents that go with it (article 25). Brazil made no declaration to apply the alternative procedure of article 24. Once recognized, the order is enforced in a federal court:

O cumprimento de decisão estrangeira far-se-á perante o juízo federal competente, a requerimento da parte, conforme as normas estabelecidas para o cumprimento de decisão nacional.

Enforcement of a foreign decision takes place before the competent federal court, at the request of the party, under the rules established for the enforcement of a Brazilian decision. (Article 965)

The Constitution gives the federal courts the enforcement of foreign judgments after homologation (article 109, X), and article 33 of the Convention adds: “The State addressed shall provide at least the same range of enforcement methods for cases under the Convention as are available in domestic cases.”

How Brazil enforces child support, and why civil arrest stays in Brazil

Brazilian enforcement of support is strong because it can reach the debtor's liberty. The Constitution forbids civil imprisonment for debt, with an exception for support: “não haverá prisão civil por dívida, salvo a do responsável pelo inadimplemento voluntário e inescusável de obrigação alimentícia e a do depositário infiel” — except for the person responsible for the voluntary and inexcusable failure to pay support, and the unfaithful depositary (article 5, LXVII). The Code of Civil Procedure gives the procedure. The debtor is served personally to pay within 3 days, prove payment or justify why payment is impossible, and only proof of an absolute impossibility to pay excuses the default (article 528, caput and § 2). Then:

Se o executado não pagar ou se a justificativa apresentada não for aceita, o juiz, além de mandar protestar o pronunciamento judicial na forma do § 1º, decretar-lhe-á a prisão pelo prazo de 1 (um) a 3 (três) meses.

If the debtor does not pay or the justification offered is not accepted, the judge, in addition to ordering the protest of the judicial decision as provided in § 1, will order the debtor's imprisonment for a period of 1 to 3 months. (Article 528, § 3)

Two limits come with it. The arrest is served in a closed regime, apart from ordinary prisoners, and does not cancel the debt (§§ 4 and 5); and it covers only the recent debt: “O débito alimentar que autoriza a prisão civil do alimentante é o que compreende até as 3 (três) prestações anteriores ao ajuizamento da execução e as que se vencerem no curso do processo.” — up to the three installments due before the enforcement was filed, plus those that fall due during the case (§ 7). Older arrears are collected the ordinary way, by attachment of assets (§ 8, and article 530). Where the debtor is a civil servant, a member of the military, a company director or an employee, the court can order the employer to deduct the support from the payroll, and older debt can also be deducted in installments, up to fifty per cent of net earnings together with the current support (article 529). For a Brazilian decision, the creditor may also enforce in the court of their own domicile (article 528, § 9); a recognized foreign decision is enforced before the competent federal court (article 965).

What none of this does is follow the debtor abroad. Article 32(1) of the Convention is plain: “Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, enforcement shall take place in accordance with the law of the State addressed.” Enforcement abroad uses the tools of the country where the debtor lives — article 34 lists wage withholding, garnishment of bank accounts, deductions from social security payments, liens and forced sale of property, tax refund withholding, pension attachment, credit bureau reporting, the suspension of licenses such as driving licenses, and mediation. A Brazilian creditor collecting from a parent in the United States obtains American measures, not a Brazilian arrest warrant; and a parent abroad collecting from a parent in Brazil obtains Brazilian measures once the order is recognized here — in my reading including those of articles 528 and 529, because the Code sends the enforcement of a recognized foreign decision to the rules for a Brazilian one (article 965).

Brazil and the United States: UIFSA, the US reservation, and what it changes

Between Brazil and the United States there is only one treaty: the Hague Convention, in force between them since November 1, 2017. On the American side, the international page of the federal child support office, at the Administration for Children and Families, explains that US states process cases with Hague Convention countries, and its training materials describe the role of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act in its 2008 version (UIFSA 2008) in implementing the Convention in the United States. The US declared that the Convention extends to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Federal law also allows the US Secretary of State to declare a country a “foreign reciprocating country” (42 U.S.C. § 659a); the same page treats Hague countries and foreign reciprocating countries — those with bilateral arrangements that have not joined the Convention — as separate categories.

The point that changes strategy is the American reservation to article 20:

the United States of America makes a reservation that it will not recognize or enforce maintenance obligation decisions rendered on the jurisdictional bases set forth in subparagraphs 1(c), 1(e), and 1(f) of Article 20 of the Convention

Article 20(1)(c) is the basis of the creditor's habitual residence in the State of origin when the proceedings were instituted. A Brazilian court can fix support on exactly that basis — the child lives in Brazil (Code of Civil Procedure, article 22, I, a) — but if, when the Brazilian case was filed, the father was not habitually resident in Brazil, did not submit to the Brazilian court, and has neither lived here with the child nor lived here while supporting the child (article 20(1)(a), (b) and (d)), the United States has reserved the right not to recognize that Brazilian decision. The Convention does not leave the child without a remedy. A State that made the reservation must still recognize the decision if its own law would have given its authorities jurisdiction in similar circumstances (article 20(3)), and if it cannot:

A Contracting State shall, if recognition of a decision is not possible as a result of a reservation under paragraph 2, and if the debtor is habitually resident in that State, take all appropriate measures to establish a decision for the benefit of the creditor.

In practice, for a child in Brazil and a father in the United States, when the Brazilian decision rests only on the creditor's residence here (article 20(1)(c)), the file the DRCI sends may need to be prepared both as a request to recognize the Brazilian decision and as one to establish a new decision in the United States (article 10(1)(a) and (d)). A US order in the other direction — made where the child and the creditor live — rests on a basis that Brazil has not reserved, and goes to the STJ for homologation.

Countries outside the Hague Convention: New York 1956 and the Inter-American Convention

The New York Convention works through two bodies in each country: a transmitting agency in the creditor's country and a receiving agency — called the intermediary institution in the Brazilian text — in the debtor's country, which acts on the creditor's behalf and may settle, sue and enforce (Decree 56,826/1965, articles I, II and VI). The United Nations' status page lists Brazil's Prosecutor-General's Office as its agency for both roles, and Law 5,478/1968 sends the Brazilian cases to the federal court of the capital of the debtor's state. It remains the route with Switzerland, Australia, Israel, Chile, Mexico, Argentina and the other parties that have not joined the Hague Convention.

The Inter-American Convention, among the States that are party to it, does more than move papers: it sets the applicable law and jurisdiction. Its article 1 defines the scope: “This Convention shall apply to child support obligations owed because of the child's minority and to spousal support obligations arising from the matrimonial relationship between spouses or former spouses.” A child, for the Convention, is a person under 18, with the benefit extended to those who remain entitled to support under the applicable law (article 2). That law is chosen in the creditor's favor: support “shall be governed by whichever of the following laws the competent authority finds the most favorable to the creditor” — between the law of the creditor's domicile or habitual residence and that of the debtor's (article 6) — and the creditor may sue in either country or in the country where the debtor has property or income (article 8). The OAS lists as parties Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Ukraine and Uruguay; the United States and Canada are not among them. The Ministry of Justice notes that it has information that Mexico and Uruguay accept requests for recognition and enforcement under this Convention.

With a country bound by none of these instruments — Japan, for instance — the support claim is brought in the courts of one of the countries under its own law, and a decision travels the ordinary way: in Brazil, by homologation at the STJ, without the free channel of a Central Authority.

Costs, free legal assistance and translations

For child support the Hague Convention is unusually generous. Each Central Authority bears its own costs (article 8(1)), and “Central Authorities may not impose any charge on an applicant for the provision of their services under the Convention save for exceptional costs arising from a request for a specific measure under Article 7.” (article 8(2)). On legal assistance, article 15(1):

The requested State shall provide free legal assistance in respect of all applications by a creditor under this Chapter concerning maintenance obligations arising from a parent-child relationship towards a person under the age of 21 years.

Free legal assistance is subject to the narrow exceptions of articles 14(3), 15(2) and 16. No security, bond or deposit may be required for the payment of costs (article 14(5)). Translation is where a charge may arise: applications go in the original language with a translation into an official language of the requested State, unless that State accepts another language (article 44), and the requesting Central Authority may charge the applicant for translation unless its legal assistance system covers it (article 45(3)). The Ministry of Justice says that Brazilian applications must be written in Portuguese and come with a translation into the official language of the requested State, and that some countries accept English. Outside the Convention, a foreign order filed at the STJ needs an official translation into Portuguese unless a treaty dispenses with it (Code of Civil Procedure, article 963, V), and the parent normally pays their own lawyer and the court costs, unless granted free justice for lack of means: the Code gives it to a person, “brasileira ou estrangeira, com insuficiência de recursos para pagar as custas, as despesas processuais e os honorários advocatícios” — Brazilian or foreign, without the resources to pay court costs, procedural expenses and lawyers' fees (article 98) — and, in a support action, the benefit is granted on a simple statement of that condition (Law 5,478/1968, article 1, §§ 2 and 3).

Changing a child support order when one parent lives abroad

A support order can be changed when finances change (Civil Code, article 1,699), but the Convention controls where. Article 18(1):

Where a decision is made in a Contracting State where the creditor is habitually resident, proceedings to modify the decision or to make a new decision cannot be brought by the debtor in any other Contracting State as long as the creditor remains habitually resident in the State where the decision was made.

The rule has exceptions — the creditor's submission to the other court, an authority of origin that cannot or will not act, or a decision that cannot be recognized where the change is sought (article 18(2)) — but the starting point is clear: as a rule, a father who moved from Brazil to Florida cannot, while the child still lives in Brazil, ask a Florida court to lower a Brazilian order. The Ministry of Justice says the same from the Brazilian side: “Decisões brasileiras devem ser alteradas no Brasil.” — Brazilian decisions must be changed in Brazil. A debtor can also use the Central Authorities to seek the modification of a decision (article 10(2)).

For a decision made before the Convention entered into force between the two countries, article 56 decides: the Convention applies to applications received by the requested Central Authority after it entered into force between the two States, and support for a child under 21 that fell due before that date is still covered (article 56(1)(a) and (3)).

Five mistakes that slow down cross-border child support with Brazil

• Sending a Hague case to the Prosecutor-General's Office. The PGR is the channel for the 1956 New York Convention; the Hague Convention — every case with the United States — runs through the Ministry of Justice's DRCI.
• Relying on a notarial or registered agreement instead of an approved one. Brazil does not recognize or enforce, under the Convention, a maintenance arrangement with provisions on minors — an agreement drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument, or authenticated, registered or filed with a competent authority and that may be the subject of review and modification by a competent authority (reservation to article 30(8); article 3(e)); a settlement approved by a court or administrative authority is a decision and is treated as one (article 19(1)).
• Getting a Brazilian order whose only basis is the creditor's residence in Brazil and expecting it to be registered in the US as it is. The United States reserved article 20(1)(c); prepare the request to establish a new decision there as well (articles 10(1)(a) and (d) and 20(4)).
• Asking a court abroad to cut a Brazilian order while the child lives in Brazil. Article 18 blocks it in most cases; the change is asked for in Brazil (Civil Code, article 1,699).
• Assuming that “Canada” or “Hague country” settles it. In Canada only the provinces extended by Canada are covered, and a country that acceded may not be bound with every State (article 58(5)); check the Hague Conference's tables on the day you file.

How I handle a cross-border child support case with Brazil

The first thing I check is geography: where the child lives, where the paying parent lives, and where that parent's salary, accounts and property are — because enforcement follows the money. The second is the paper that exists: a decision, an approved settlement, an administrative order or nothing yet. With those two facts I choose the route — the Hague Convention through the Central Authorities, the New York or Inter-American Convention, or a direct case in Brazil, with homologation at the STJ when a foreign order already exists — and I prepare the file to avoid its coming back for a missing document or translation. When the order is Brazilian and the debtor is in the United States, I prepare the request with the American reservation in mind. When the debtor is in Brazil, I follow the case with the DRCI and, once the order is recognized, the enforcement in the federal court, including, in my reading, payroll deduction and the measures of article 528.

The three facts that organize a child support case between Brazil and another country

• Brazil has child support, fixed in proportion to the child's needs and the parent's means, and Brazilian courts hear support claims when the creditor lives in Brazil or the debtor has property or income here. Civil Code, articles 1,694 and 1,699; Code of Civil Procedure, article 22, I.
• With the United States, the EU, the UK, Norway and the other Hague countries, the 2007 Hague Convention applies — in force for Brazil since November 1, 2017 — through the Ministry of Justice's DRCI as Central Authority, with free legal assistance, as a rule, for children under 21; the Prosecutor-General's Office is the channel only for the 1956 New York Convention. Decree 9,176/2017; Convention, articles 2, 9 and 15; Law 5,478/1968, article 26.
• A foreign order works in Brazil, as a rule, after homologation by the STJ and is then enforced in a federal court under Brazilian rules, which, in my reading, include payroll deduction and civil arrest for the recent debt; abroad, enforcement follows the law of the country where the debtor is. Code of Civil Procedure, articles 528, 529, 961 and 965; Constitution, article 5, LXVII; Convention, articles 32 and 34.

Carvalho Barros Advocacia Internacional handles cross-border family matters for clients abroad — child support between Brazil and other countries, Hague return and access cases, and the recognition of foreign family judgments — through its international family law practice. For a child taken to Brazil or kept here, see my article on Hague Convention child abduction in Brazil.

Frequently asked questions

About the author

Luiz Alberto de Carvalho Barros Filho

Attorney at Law — Brazilian Bar (OAB/AL 7.530)

Brazilian attorney dedicated to private international law and cross-border taxation. Published author in the International Law Deskbook 2.0 (The Florida Bar) and contributor to the International Law Quarterly, also of The Florida Bar.

More about the firm

Legal note. This article is informational, does not replace individual legal advice and promises no result (Brazilian Bar Provision OAB No. 205/2021). The texts it relies on were read on November 5, 2026 in their official sources: the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance in its English text at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, with the Conference's status table, the reservations and declarations of Brazil and of the United States and the table of Canada's territorial units; Decree No. 9,176/2017, Law No. 5,478/1968 (article 26), the Constitution of Brazil (articles 5, LXVII, 105, I, i, and 109, X), the Civil Code (articles 1,694, 1,696 and 1,699) and the Code of Civil Procedure (articles 22, 528 to 531, 961, 963 and 965) on the federal legislation portal; Decree No. 56,826/1965 on the Chamber of Deputies' legislation portal and the status of the 1956 New York Convention at the United Nations Treaty Collection; the 1989 Inter-American Convention on Support Obligations and its table of signatures at the Organization of American States; the Ministry of Justice and Public Security's pages on international support, on the Hague support convention and on the applicable agreements; Joint Ordinance SNJ/DPU No. 1/2019 in the Official Gazette; the international page of the Administration for Children and Families' child support office; and 42 U.S.C. § 659a. Limits: (i) how the Superior Court of Justice applies article 23 of the Convention to Hague requests, and the time a case takes, are not stated; (ii) the law of the United States or of any other country is not addressed beyond what the federal page quoted says; (iii) how a Brazilian judge sets the amount in a particular case is not addressed; (iv) the list of countries is a selection from the official tables and must be checked for any other country, and for Canada province by province. To review your specific case, contact attorney Luiz Barros — Brazilian Bar, OAB/AL 7.530.