Hague Convention Child Abduction in Brazil: Return Before Custody, and Why the First Year Weighs Most

Published November 5, 2026. Also available in Portuguese.

In short. Brazil applies the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. If a child who lived in another Convention country is taken to Brazil, or kept there, in breach of the other parent's custody rights, the Convention's answer is to send the child back to the country where the child lived, so that the courts of that country decide custody. In Brazil the request normally runs through the federal Central Authority, the Federal Attorney General's Office and a federal judge. Two things weigh more than anything else: whether the Convention is in force between Brazil and your country, and whether the case reaches the authority within a year of the removal.

This article reads the texts behind the questions a foreign parent types about child abduction and custody in Brazil, as I read them on November 4, 2026: the Convention in its authentic English text at the Hague Conference and as promulgated in Brazil by Decree 3,413/2000; the Hague Conference's status table and its list of the countries that accepted Brazil's accession; the Ministry of Justice's pages on international child abduction; Ordinance 688/2024 of the Ministry of Justice; Resolution 449/2022 of the National Council of Justice; the Supreme Court's official news of its 2025 ruling; the Civil Code on custody; and the Statute of the Child and Adolescent with Resolution 131/2011 on children's travel. Where a text is quoted in Portuguese, the English beside it is my translation; the Convention's English text is authentic and is quoted as published.

Hague Convention child abduction and Brazil, in one answer

Yes, Brazil is a party to the 1980 Hague Convention on child abduction: it acceded on October 19, 1999 and the Convention entered into force for Brazil on January 1, 2000 (Decree 3,413/2000). Because Brazil acceded, the Convention works between Brazil and another country only once an acceptance of the accession has taken effect between them (by that country or, for a country that acceded after Brazil, by Brazil accepting that country's accession) — for the United States from December 1, 2003, for the United Kingdom from March 1, 2005, and for Canada from November 1, 2003, according to the Hague Conference's table — and only for removals or retentions after that date (articles 35 and 38).

When a child under sixteen is wrongfully taken to Brazil or kept there, and the proceedings start less than a year after the removal or retention, the authority “shall order the return of the child forthwith” (article 12). After a year, return is still ordered unless the child is shown to be settled in the new environment. The exceptions are those of article 13 — custody not actually exercised, consent or acquiescence, grave risk, the objection of a mature child — and of article 20; since August 2025 Brazil's Supreme Court reads the grave-risk exception so as to admit its application where there are objective and concrete indications of domestic violence, even if the child is not the direct victim.

A return case does not decide custody (articles 16 and 19). In Brazil the left-behind parent applies through the Central Authority of the child's country; Brazil's Central Authority (ACAF, in the Ministry of Justice) tries conciliation and, failing it, normally sends the case to the Federal Attorney General's Office, which files it in a federal court in its own name — it does not represent the parent, who may hire a lawyer at their own cost.

The rest of this page takes each part of that answer to its text: whether the Convention applies between Brazil and your country, what counts as wrongful, how a case runs in Brazil, the one-year line, the exceptions and the 2025 ruling, why return is not custody and what Brazilian custody law says, how a child leaves Brazil lawfully, access across borders, and costs.

Is Brazil part of the Hague Convention? Since when, and with which countries

Brazil did not sign the 1980 Convention; it acceded to it. The Decree that promulgated it records that the Brazilian government “depositou o Instrumento de Adesão da referida Convenção em 19 de outubro de 1999” — deposited the instrument of accession on October 19, 1999 — and that the Convention came into force for Brazil on January 1, 2000. The Hague Conference's status table shows the same two dates and marks the accession “A*”: an accession that gives rise to an acceptance procedure.

That procedure is article 38. An accession “will have effect only as regards the relations between the acceding State and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession”, and the Convention enters into force between the two on the first day of the third calendar month after the acceptance is deposited. Article 35 adds that the Convention applies between Contracting States only to wrongful removals or retentions occurring after its entry into force in those States. So the first question in any case with Brazil is not “is Brazil a Hague country?” but “since when is the Convention in force between Brazil and the country where the child lived?”.

The list is longer than the table and keeps moving; for a country not shown, check the Hague Conference's page of acceptances of Brazil's accession before relying on the Convention. The Hague Conference has other conventions too: if your question is about legalizing documents, that is the 1961 Apostille Convention, covered in the firm's article on the apostille and Brazilian documents.

One more instrument matters inside the Americas. Brazil is also a party to the 1989 Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children, whose article 34 says:

Among the Member States of the Organization of American States that are parties to this Convention and to the Hague Convention of October 25, 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction, this Convention shall prevail.

The same article allows bilateral agreements giving priority to the Hague Convention. Neither the United States nor Canada appears in the Organization of American States' table of signatures and ratifications of that convention, so for a child who lived in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia or Asia the instrument is the Hague Convention. For a child who lived in another American State that is a party to both conventions — Mexico and Belize among them — the inter-American convention prevails (article 34). Cases with Spanish-speaking countries of the region are analysed in the firm's Spanish-language article on the international return of children with Brazil.

What counts as wrongful removal or retention

Article 3 defines it, and the definition is about the child's habitual residence and the custody rights that existed there:

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where - a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

In the Brazilian Decree, the first condition reads “a) tenha havido violação a direito de guarda atribuído a pessoa ou a instituição ou a qualquer outro organismo, individual ou conjuntamente, pela lei do Estado onde a criança tivesse sua residência habitual imediatamente antes de sua transferência ou da sua retenção; e”. Four consequences follow from the text. First, the law that tells you whether the left-behind parent had custody rights is the law of the country where the child habitually lived immediately before the removal — not Brazilian law and not the law of the parent's nationality. Second, “rights of custody” include “the right to determine the child's place of residence” (article 5, a); a parent who shares that right has custody rights for the Convention even without a custody order. Third, the rights may arise by operation of law, by a judicial or administrative decision, or by an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State (article 3, last paragraph), so a parent without any court decision is not outside the Convention. Fourth, the Convention “shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years” (article 4).

A retention is as much a case as a removal. The typical retention with Brazil starts with an authorized trip: the child flies to Brazil for the holidays with the other parent's written consent and does not come back. The Ministry of Justice's ordinance defines the case Brazil receives — passive abduction — as the removal of a child from the country of habitual residence to Brazil without the applicant's consent, “bem como a retenção no Brasil por um período superior ao autorizado pelo requerente” — as well as the retention in Brazil for a period longer than that authorized by the applicant (Ordinance 688/2024, article 3, I). Brazilian travel rules point the same way from the other side: under National Council of Justice Resolution 131/2011, “Salvo se expressamente consignado, as autorizações de viagem internacional expressas nesta resolução não se constituem em autorizações para fixação de residência permanente no exterior.” — unless expressly stated, a travel authorization is not an authorization to fix permanent residence abroad (article 11).

How a Hague return case runs in Brazil: Central Authority, Federal Attorney General, federal court

The application. Article 8 lets the left-behind parent apply to the Central Authority of the child's habitual residence or of any other Contracting State. For a child brought to Brazil, the Ministry of Justice's page tells the applicant to contact the Central Authority of the country where the child lived before the removal, and says communications on the case must go between central authorities. The file the Ministry lists includes the applicant's identity document, the child's birth certificate, the parents' marriage certificate if any, custody and divorce decisions if any, any travel authorization, documents showing that the country was the child's habitual residence (vaccination card, health plan, school enrolment, statements from neighbours) and documents showing that the parent exercised care or the right to decide the child's residence, with photographs and any information on where the child is in Brazil. The form is filled in twice — in Portuguese and in the language of the country where the child lived — and every document must be translated into Portuguese; in principle sworn translations are waived when the documents travel between the central authorities.

The Central Authority in Brazil. Brazil's Central Authority is the Federal Central Administrative Authority (ACAF). Since Decree 11,348/2023 its functions are exercised within the Department of Asset Recovery and International Legal Cooperation of the National Secretariat of Justice, in the Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Under Ordinance 688/2024 (article 8), ACAF checks the application and asks the foreign authority for more information — including whether the abduction is a crime in that country and whether there is an arrest warrant, and whether domestic violence was alleged and what protection the country offers on return. If the parent with the child is located, ACAF contacts them immediately to try conciliation; an agreement drafted by ACAF and signed by both parents and two witnesses is an extrajudicial enforceable title. If the parent refuses conciliation, they have seven days to answer in writing, and ACAF then has seven days to send the Federal Attorney General's Office (AGU) a technical note for the court case. ACAF also tells the state court where any custody case is pending, so that it is stayed under article 16. Where the existence of the article 13, b) exception is manifest, ACAF instead tells the applicant, through the foreign Central Authority, that they may bring a private return case through a private lawyer or, if they show financial need, the public defender (article 8, § 11); and the request is closed if the AGU decides the court case is inadmissible (article 11, VI) — which does not prevent the parent from going to the courts directly (article 13).

Who goes to court, and for whom. The Ministry's page is explicit about the role of the AGU, which files the return case in its own name at the foreign State's request:

a AGU não representa os interesses do particular perante a justiça, mas sim o interesse do Estado estrangeiro que solicita a cooperação jurídica

The AGU does not represent the private party's interests before the court, but the interest of the foreign State that requests the legal cooperation.

The same page says that a parent who wants a lawyer to follow the case and defend their own interests must pay for one, and that the Central Authority does not recommend lawyers. The parent is not a spectator: under Resolution 449/2022 of the National Council of Justice, the person who claims custody rights under the law of the child's habitual residence is an interested party in cases brought by the Union and may intervene as an assistant (article 8), and the defendant is the person with whom the child is in Brazil (article 7). Article 29 of the Convention also leaves open the direct route — applying straight to the courts — and the Resolution contemplates a case filed by the left-behind person represented by a lawyer (article 14, § 3).

The court. Return cases are federal: the Resolution grounds the competence of the federal courts on article 109, I and III, of the Constitution — causes in which the Union is a party and causes founded on a treaty of the Union with a foreign State. The Resolution sets the pace: on receiving the petition the federal judge decides any provisional measure, orders service and sets a mediation hearing within thirty days whenever viable (article 10); the answer is due in fifteen days (article 11) and must keep to the Convention's grounds for refusing return (article 12); without mediation, the judge organizes the case and sets the trial hearing within thirty days (article 14); appeals are judged within two ordinary sessions (article 19). Where there is a risk of a new removal, the judge considers restricting travel — retaining passports and alerting border authorities (article 18, § 1). A custody case in the state courts is stayed until the federal court rules on return (article 22), and a federal return order is complied with even if a state court has decided custody (article 21, citing article 17 of the Convention).

The one-year line and the six weeks

Article 12 is the centre of the Convention:

Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.

The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.

In the Brazilian Decree: “Quando uma criança tiver sido ilicitamente transferida ou retida nos termos do Artigo 3 e tenha decorrido um período de menos de 1 ano entre a data da transferência ou da retenção indevidas e a data do início do processo perante a autoridade judicial ou administrativa do Estado Contratante onde a criança se encontrar, a autoridade respectiva deverá ordenar o retorno imediato da criança.” and “A autoridade judicial ou administrativa respectiva, mesmo após expirado o período de 1 ano referido no parágrafo anterior, deverá ordenar o retorno da criança, salvo quando for provado que a criança já se encontra integrada no seu novo meio.”. Read together, the two paragraphs say two different things. Inside the year, the order is return forthwith, and the child's adaptation to Brazil is not a ground on which the authority may refuse it. After the year, return is still the rule, but the parent who took the child may prove that the child is settled in the new environment. The year is not a deadline after which the Convention stops working; it is the line after which one more defence becomes available.

Resolution 449/2022 counts that year in its own way. Among the defences it lists “a integração da criança ao local de residência atual, se, na data do recebimento do pedido de cooperação jurídica pelo Estado brasileiro, decorreu um ano ou mais da data da transferência ou da retenção indevidas” — the child's integration into the current place of residence, if on the date the Brazilian State received the request for legal cooperation a year or more had passed since the removal or retention (article 12, V) — and it makes evidence of the child's adaptation to Brazil inadmissible when less than a year passed between the removal and the receipt of the request by the Brazilian Central Authority, or the filing of the case when the left-behind parent sues through a lawyer (article 14, § 3). The two texts do not count the year to the same date: the Convention to the start of the proceedings before the authority, the Resolution to the receipt of the request in Brazil. Which one a court will apply is not settled here; the safe course is that both dates fall inside the year, so the file should leave your country's Central Authority as early as possible.

Article 11 adds a second clock: if the authority has not decided within six weeks from the commencement of the proceedings, the applicant or the Central Authority may ask for a statement of the reasons for the delay. The Convention attaches no sanction to the six weeks — it gives the right to ask why — though Resolution 449/2022 refers to them as the period the Convention sets for Brazil to respond.

The exceptions: article 13, article 20 and the 2025 Supreme Court ruling

Article 13 lists the cases in which the authority “is not bound” to order return:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that - a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.

The burden is on the person who opposes return: the text says that person “establishes” the exception. In Brazil the line on grave risk reads “b) que existe um risco grave de a criança, no seu retorno, ficar sujeita a perigos de ordem física ou psíquica, ou, de qualquer outro modo, ficar numa situação intolerável.”. The same article tells the authority to take into account the information on the child's social background provided by the Central Authority or another competent authority of the habitual residence. Article 20 adds a narrower ground: return under article 12 may be refused if it would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Resolution 449/2022 tells the defendant to keep the answer to the grounds that bar return under the Convention, listing some of them, and for the child's objection it speaks of the preference of a child over twelve not to return (article 12, III); when that defence is raised, the judge hears the child and checks that the child's view is free of undue influence (article 16).

The 2025 ruling. On August 27, 2025, Brazil's Supreme Court decided two direct actions of unconstitutionality on the Convention (ADI 4245 and ADI 7686). According to the Court's official news of that day, the Court held that the Convention is compatible with the Constitution and has supra-legal status in Brazilian law — unanimously in ADI 4245 and by majority in ADI 7686, according to the judgment record on the Court's docket — and the third point of the thesis reads:

3 – A exceção de risco grave à criança, prevista no art. 13 (1) (b) da Convenção da Haia de 1980, deve ser interpretada de forma compatível com o princípio do melhor interesse da criança (art. 227, CF) e com perspectiva de gênero, de modo a admitir sua aplicação quando houver indícios objetivos e concretos de violência doméstica, ainda que a criança não seja vítima direta.

3 – The exception of grave risk to the child, provided for in art. 13 (1) (b) of the 1980 Hague Convention, must be interpreted in a manner compatible with the principle of the best interests of the child (art. 227 of the Constitution) and with a gender perspective, so as to admit its application where there are objective and concrete indications of domestic violence, even if the child is not the direct victim.

The same news reports structural measures: concentrating these cases in specialized federal courts and panels, a seal of preferential processing, specialized support units in the regional federal courts, a consular protocol for women and children who are victims of domestic violence, and a working group at the National Council of Justice to propose a resolution so that the final decision on return is taken within up to one year. I quote the thesis from the Court's news, not from the published judgment, and I do not state whether a new resolution has been issued since. The judgment was published in the Court's electronic gazette on September 10, 2026, and a motion for clarification (embargos de declaração) filed on September 17, 2026 had not been decided when I checked the ADI 4245 docket on November 5, 2026.

For a foreign parent asking for return, the ruling means that an allegation of domestic violence will be examined on its evidence — “objective and concrete indications” — and that the file should show, from the start, what protection the child and the returning parent would have in the country of habitual residence; ACAF itself asks the foreign authority that question (Ordinance 688/2024, article 8, § 2, II). For a parent who came to Brazil with the child to escape violence, the same words describe what the defence must show.

Return is not custody: what a Brazilian court decides, and Brazil's custody law

The Convention keeps the two questions apart. Article 16:

After receiving notice of a wrongful removal or retention of a child in the sense of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice.

And article 19, in the Brazilian Decree: “Qualquer decisão sobre o retorno da criança, tomada nos termos da presente Convenção, não afeta os fundamentos do direito de guarda.” — a decision on return does not affect the merits of custody. Ordinance 688/2024 says the same from the administrative side: decisions on custody and support are excluded from the procedure, as “matérias privativas da jurisdição do Estado de residência habitual da criança ou do adolescente” — matters reserved to the jurisdiction of the State of the child's habitual residence (article 4). The order sends the child back so that custody can be decided there; it does not award custody to the left-behind parent. And under article 17, the mere fact that a custody decision has been given in Brazil, or could be recognized there, is not a ground for refusing return.

Brazilian custody law matters when there is no Hague case — the child's habitual residence is Brazil, the Convention is not in force with the other country, or return has been refused. Its main lines, in the Civil Code:

• Two forms. “A guarda será unilateral ou compartilhada.” — custody is sole or shared (article 1,583). In shared custody the time with the children is divided in a balanced way between mother and father, always in view of the facts and the children's interests (article 1,583, § 2), and “Na guarda compartilhada, a cidade considerada base de moradia dos filhos será aquela que melhor atender aos interesses dos filhos.” — the city taken as the children's home base is the one that best serves their interests (§ 3).
• Shared custody without agreement. When the parents do not agree and both are fit to exercise parental authority, shared custody is applied, unless one parent tells the judge they do not want custody or there is evidence of the probability of a risk of domestic or family violence (article 1,584, § 2, as worded by Law 14,713/2023).
• Travel and moving belong to both parents. Whatever their marital situation, both parents exercise parental authority, which includes “conceder-lhes ou negar-lhes consentimento para viajarem ao exterior” — granting or refusing consent for the children to travel abroad — and “conceder-lhes ou negar-lhes consentimento para mudarem sua residência permanente para outro Município” — granting or refusing consent for them to move their permanent residence to another municipality (article 1,634, IV and V).
• Disagreement goes to a judge. “Divergindo os pais quanto ao exercício do poder familiar, é assegurado a qualquer deles recorrer ao juiz para solução do desacordo.” — where the parents disagree on the exercise of parental authority, either may go to the judge to resolve it (article 1,631, sole paragraph).

Custody, support and visitation in a Brazilian divorce are covered in the firm's article on divorce in Brazil; whether a foreign custody judgment takes effect in Brazil is the subject of the article on enforcing foreign judgments in Brazil.

Taking a child out of Brazil: passport, travel consent and moving abroad

Brazil controls the exit of children at two points, the Ministry of Justice's prevention page says: the passport and the departure. A passport for a child or adolescent, in Brazil or at a Brazilian consulate, is issued only with the express written authorization of both parents. At departure, the Statute of the Child and Adolescent says:

Art. 84. Quando se tratar de viagem ao exterior, a autorização é dispensável, se a criança ou adolescente: I - estiver acompanhado de ambos os pais ou responsável; II - viajar na companhia de um dos pais, autorizado expressamente pelo outro através de documento com firma reconhecida.

Art. 84. In the case of travel abroad, the authorization is not required if the child or adolescent: I – is accompanied by both parents or the guardian; II – travels in the company of one of the parents, expressly authorized by the other through a document with a notarized signature.

Article 85 adds that, without prior and express judicial authorization, “Sem prévia e expressa autorização judicial, nenhuma criança ou adolescente nascido em território nacional poderá sair do País em companhia de estrangeiro residente ou domiciliado no exterior.” — no child born in Brazil may leave the country in the company of a foreigner resident or domiciled abroad. Resolution 131/2011 of the National Council of Justice reads those articles together: a child resident in Brazil travels abroad without a court order with both parents, or with one parent and the other's authorization with a notarized signature, or alone or with a third party authorized by both (article 1); the authorization may also be given by public deed (article 4); if it states no validity, it is valid for two years (article 10); and the judicial-authorization rule for travel with a foreigner resident abroad does not apply “se o estrangeiro for genitor da criança ou adolescente” — if the foreigner is the child's parent (article 3, sole paragraph, I). The Resolution accepts the notarization of the signature by authenticity or by similarity (article 8, § 1); the Ministry of Justice's page says the signatures must be recognized by authenticity, that is, the form must be signed before the notary. An authorization given before a Brazilian consular officer is valid without notarization, with the consular officer's signature on it (article 8, § 2).

A Brazilian child who lives abroad and is visiting Brazil goes back to the country of residence with one of the parents without any written authorization, if the residence abroad is proven by a residence certificate issued by a Brazilian consulate less than two years earlier (Resolution 131/2011, article 2). Without that certificate, the rules for children resident in Brazil apply.

Two points close the section. A travel authorization is not consent to move: unless it says so, it does not authorize fixing permanent residence abroad (Resolution 131/2011, article 11, quoted above), and a parent who wants to relocate with the child without the other's agreement has to ask a judge (Civil Code, articles 1,631 and 1,634). For a parent abroad who wants to move to Brazil with the child without the other's consent, the Ministry of Justice's page says the court authorization must come from the country where the child lives; a Brazilian court cannot give it if the child's habitual residence is not Brazil. And Brazilian criminal law has a crime of taking a minor away from the person who holds custody by law or court order — “Subtrair menor de dezoito anos ou interdito ao poder de quem o tem sob sua guarda em virtude de lei ou de ordem judicial” (Penal Code, article 249) — from which a parent is not exempt if deprived of parental authority or custody (§ 1). Whether it applies to a particular case is not decided here; the Hague procedure is civil.

Access across borders: article 21

Not every case is about return. A parent who lives abroad and cannot see a child who lawfully lives in Brazil can ask the Central Authorities for help “in the same way as an application for the return of a child” (article 21): the Central Authorities must promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and remove, as far as possible, the obstacles to it. Resolution 449/2022 applies its procedure to court cases on access, as far as it fits (article 24). Ordinance 688/2024 defines access broadly — in-person or virtual contact by any available means, including taking the child for a limited time to a place other than where the child habitually lives (article 3, V).

Costs, translations and lawyers

Article 26 of the Convention:

Central Authorities and other public services of Contracting States shall not impose any charges in relation to applications submitted under this Convention. In particular, they may not require any payment from the applicant towards the costs and expenses of the proceedings or, where applicable, those arising from the participation of legal counsel or advisers. However, they may require the payment of the expenses incurred or to be incurred in implementing the return of the child.

The same article allows a State to reserve that point, and some did; the Ministry of Justice's page on children taken from Brazil gives the United States and Germany as examples of countries where the applicant bears court costs and lawyers' fees. Brazil's only reservation in the Hague Conference's table is to article 24, on translations: the Decree requires foreign documents filed in court to come with a translation into Portuguese by a sworn translator. Finland (in 2000) and Türkiye objected to that reservation as far as it excludes both English and French, and declared that it may not be invoked against them to that extent. In practice, the Ministry's page says sworn translation is in principle waived when documents travel between central authorities, and Resolution 449/2022 allows any means of understanding a foreign-language document, including machine translation, when the party has legal aid or a sworn version could delay the case (article 17).

For a child brought to Brazil, the case normally reaches the court without fees, through the AGU. What the parent pays for, if they choose, is their own lawyer — to prepare the file before it leaves home, to intervene in the federal case as an assistant, to follow the mediation, and to deal with the questions the Convention does not answer, such as custody, support and the child's documents once the case ends. Costs, fees and exemptions follow the general rules of the Code of Civil Procedure (Resolution 449/2022, article 23), and a parent who intervenes as an assistant may be ordered to pay court costs in proportion to their activity in the case if the side they assist loses (Code of Civil Procedure, article 94).

Five mistakes that weaken a Hague case with Brazil

• Waiting for a custody order before applying. Custody rights may arise, in particular, by operation of law, by a judicial or administrative decision or by an agreement having legal effect under the law of the child's habitual residence (article 3); the year in article 12 runs from the removal or retention, not from a later custody decision.
• Filing for custody in Brazil instead of return. The Brazilian court of a Hague case does not decide custody, and a Brazilian custody decision does not prevent return (articles 16, 17 and 19); starting with custody in Brazil spends the time that article 12 counts.
• Assuming the Convention applies because both countries are “Hague countries”. With Brazil it applies only from the date the acceptance of the accession between Brazil and that country took effect, and only to removals or retentions after that date (articles 35 and 38).
• Treating a signed travel consent as harmless. In Brazil a travel authorization is not consent to move unless it says so (Resolution 131/2011, article 11); in a retention case, the consent you signed — with its dates — is evidence of what you agreed to and what you did not.
• Leaving out the protection question. After the 2025 ruling, an allegation of domestic violence is examined on objective and concrete indications; a file that already shows what protection exists on return answers the question ACAF will ask anyway.

How I handle a Hague case with Brazil

When a parent abroad writes to me, the first thing I check is the date: when the child left or stopped coming back, and whether the Convention was in force between Brazil and that country at that moment, on the Hague Conference's table. The second is the custody right under the law of the child's habitual residence — I ask the parent's lawyer there, or the Central Authority, for that law, because the Brazilian court will apply it. Then I look at the file before it leaves the foreign Central Authority: the proof of habitual residence, the proof that the parent exercised care, the travel consent and its dates, and the translation into Portuguese. Once the case is in Brazil, I follow ACAF's conciliation, and in court I intervene as the parent's lawyer alongside the AGU, which represents the foreign State, not the parent. For a parent in Brazil, the same reading runs in reverse: whether the case falls within the Convention at all, and what the evidence shows under articles 12, 13 and 20.

The three facts that organize a Hague child abduction case with Brazil

• Brazil acceded to the Convention, in force for it since January 1, 2000; with each other country it applies only from the date the acceptance of the accession between Brazil and that country took effect — December 1, 2003 for the United States — and only to removals or retentions after that date. Decree 3,413/2000; Convention, articles 35 and 38; Hague Conference status table.
• A child under sixteen wrongfully removed to or retained in Brazil is returned forthwith if the proceedings start within a year; after a year, unless the child is settled; the exceptions are articles 13 and 20, and since 2025 the grave-risk exception admits application on objective and concrete indications of domestic violence. Convention, articles 3, 4, 12, 13 and 20; Supreme Court, ADI 4245 and 7686, thesis item 3.
• The case normally runs through ACAF and the AGU in a federal court; it does not decide custody; the AGU represents the foreign State, not the parent, who may hire a lawyer and intervene as an assistant. Convention, articles 16 and 19; Ordinance 688/2024, articles 4 and 8; Resolution 449/2022, articles 7, 8, 10 to 14 and 22.

Carvalho Barros Advocacia Internacional handles cross-border family matters for clients abroad — Hague return and access cases with Brazil, the child's documents and travel, custody and the recognition of foreign family judgments — through its international family law practice.

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 4 and 5, 2026 in their official sources: the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in its English text at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, with the Conference's status table, its list of acceptances of Brazil's accession and its page of reservations and declarations; Decree No. 3,413/2000, Decree No. 11,348/2023, the Constitution of Brazil (article 109), the Civil Code (articles 1,583, 1,584, 1,631 and 1,634), the Code of Civil Procedure (article 94), the Penal Code (article 249) and the Statute of the Child and Adolescent, Law No. 8,069/1990 (articles 84 and 85), on the federal legislation portal; the 1989 Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children (article 34) and its table of signatures at the Organization of American States; the Ministry of Justice and Public Security's pages on the Federal Central Administrative Authority and on international child abduction (children brought to Brazil, children taken from Brazil, prevention); Ministry of Justice Ordinance No. 688/2024 in the Ministry's digital library; National Council of Justice Resolutions No. 449/2022 and No. 131/2011 on the Council's official acts portal; and the Supreme Federal Court's official news of August 27, 2025 on ADI 4245 and ADI 7686, and the Court's docket for ADI 4245 (judgment record and case history). Limits: (i) the Supreme Court's thesis is quoted from the Court's official news, not from the judgment published on September 10, 2026, against which a motion for clarification filed on September 17, 2026 had not been decided on November 5, 2026, and no later resolution of the National Council of Justice is stated; (ii) the time a case takes and its outcome are not stated; (iii) the law of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada or any other country is not addressed; (iv) whether article 249 of the Penal Code applies to a particular case is not decided; (v) the list of countries is a selection from the Hague Conference's table and must be checked for any other country. To review your specific case, contact attorney Luiz Barros — Brazilian Bar, OAB/AL 7.530.