How to Request payment of child support in another Country
Choosing the appropriate international maintenance procedure, preparing the evidence and coordinating recovery when Brazil and another jurisdiction are involved.
An international child support request begins with the remedy required: establishing an obligation, obtaining recognition of an existing decision, enforcing unpaid instalments or seeking modification. The countries involved, the applicant’s residence, the child’s age and the character of any existing instrument determine which route is available. A foreign address alone does not identify the applicable treaty or the competent authority.
For matters connected with Brazil, the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention and the 1956 New York Convention provide distinct systems of cooperation. Their operation must be checked between the relevant States and within the applicable scope. Administrative transmission, legal representation, recognition and enforcement are separate functions; appointing counsel or submitting forms does not itself produce payment.
The practical sequence is to establish the legal route, assemble the documents appropriate to the application, identify the responsible authorities and monitor the steps leading to an enforceable result. Existing orders, payment records and information about the debtor should be preserved from the outset. Where the destination country has not yet been identified, advice must remain conditional on that essential enquiry.
1. Identify the applicable treaty and its scope
The Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance entered into force for Brazil on 1 November 2017 and was promulgated by Decree No. 9,176/2017. Before using it, check the HCCH status table, entry-into-force dates, relevant territorial extensions and any objections affecting an accession. A State’s signature or appearance in a list is not necessarily evidence that the Convention is already operative for the proposed request.
Article 2 ordinarily covers maintenance arising from a parent-child relationship towards a person under twenty-one. A State may reserve the right to restrict that category to persons under eighteen. Other maintenance categories and access to the cooperation machinery depend on the Convention’s provisions and declarations. Treaty scope must be distinguished from the substantive duration of a maintenance obligation; neither age should be presented as a universal termination date for support.
Brazil has deposited an extension of scope under Article 2(3), subject to its reservations. An extension operates between States only to the extent that their declarations cover the same obligations. Brazil’s reservations concerning Article 20(1)(e) and maintenance arrangements under Article 30 also require attention. The debtor’s location, the relevant category of beneficiary and the legal form of the existing obligation therefore matter before a form is selected.
The United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, concluded in New York on 20 June 1956 and promulgated in Brazil by Decree No. 56,826/1965, remains relevant where it applies. Article 49 of the 2007 Convention replaces the New York Convention between Contracting States only insofar as their scopes coincide. Where neither route fits, other applicable agreements, reciprocity arrangements or procedures under domestic law must be assessed; a Hague procedure cannot simply be assumed to exist.
2. Distinguish establishment, recognition, enforcement and modification
Article 10 of the 2007 Convention offers several applications. If no maintenance decision exists, an application may seek establishment in the requested State, including determination of parentage where necessary. If an order already exists abroad, the appropriate request may be recognition and enforcement. If the order was made or has already been recognised in the requested State, enforcement may be the required step. Each category has its own evidentiary and procedural consequences.
A request to increase, reduce or otherwise modify an obligation differs from collecting amounts already due. Article 18 restricts certain proceedings brought by a debtor to modify a decision made in the State where the creditor remains habitually resident, subject to the exceptions it identifies. An application cannot be used to bypass those restrictions merely because the debtor has moved. The Convention also provides specified applications for debtors; it is not confined to one procedural position.
Recognition is not a fresh assessment of the merits: Article 28 excludes substantive review of the original decision. The Convention nevertheless requires a recognised basis under Article 20 and permits refusal on the grounds in Article 22. The decision must have effect in the State of origin and be enforceable there for enforcement abroad. An arrears schedule or informal account of a judgment does not replace proof of the underlying instrument and its relevant legal status.
Where a foreign decision is to take effect in Brazil, assess the recognition procedure separately from subsequent enforcement. The STJ’s constitutional competence and Articles 960–965 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be read with the applicable treaty. Transmission by a Central Authority is not itself a recognition judgment. Conversely, establishing a new obligation in a competent Brazilian proceeding is a different task from recognising an existing foreign order.
3. Identify the Brazilian authority and the legal representative
For the 2007 Convention, Brazil’s Central Authority is the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, acting through the Department of Asset Recovery and International Legal Cooperation, DRCI, within the National Secretariat of Justice. Its administrative work includes reviewing and transmitting applications and cooperating with the foreign authority. Article 6 also provides assistance concerning location, financial information, evidence, parentage, service and collection, within the Convention’s conditions and domestic allocation of powers.
For applications remaining within the New York Convention, the Brazilian channel is the Procuradoria-Geral da República, PGR. The UN depositary records the PGR as Brazil’s Transmitting Agency and Receiving Agency, and Article 26 of Law No. 5,478/1968 identifies it as the intermediary institution. The DRCI designation under the later Hague Convention must not be transferred indiscriminately to the New York route, or vice versa.
The Central Authority is not necessarily the applicant’s lawyer. Current MJSP guidance expressly distinguishes the DRCI’s screening and transmission functions from legal representation and identifies assistance by the Defensoria Pública da União, DPU, for eligible beneficiaries, alongside the option of private counsel. It also describes the possible referral of qualifying incoming requests to the DPU for proceedings in Brazil. The PGR’s role under a different treaty and the functions of the AGU cannot be assumed to be identical to that arrangement.
Private counsel can assess the route, organise evidence, review forms and coordinate with lawyers authorised to act in the other jurisdiction where necessary. The retainer should identify who handles the administrative application, local proceedings, recognition, enforcement and reporting. A lawyer’s appointment in Brazil does not confer an unrestricted right to practise before a foreign court, and appointing a private professional is not a universal prerequisite to obtaining Central Authority assistance.
4. Keep jurisdiction and applicable law distinct
For establishment and modification, Article 10(3) of the 2007 Convention preserves the jurisdictional rules applicable in the requested State. In Brazil, Article 22(I) of the Code of Civil Procedure supplies specific international connecting factors for maintenance, including the creditor’s domicile or residence in Brazil and relevant economic or property links of the defendant with the country. Those rules do not determine every question of domestic court allocation. Article 26 of Law No. 5,478/1968 contains a specific federal-jurisdiction rule for proceedings under the New York Convention.
The 2007 Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations addresses a separate enquiry. It entered into force for Brazil alongside the Convention, but the two instruments have different participation records and functions. Under Article 3 of the Protocol, the general rule refers to the creditor’s habitual residence, subject to the special provisions, including Article 4’s rules favouring specified creditors. The amount and duration of support cannot be inferred solely from the country through which the application is transmitted.
Article 2 gives the Protocol universal application in the sense that the law it designates may be the law of a non-Contracting State. That does not make the Protocol binding on every foreign court, establish jurisdiction or create a worldwide enforcement mechanism. Its applicability in the forum and the relevant rules must be verified before advising on entitlement or modification.
5. Prepare the documents required for the particular application
Separate minimum application information from documents required only for a particular remedy and from additional evidence that may assist the authorities. Under the 2007 Convention, Article 11 governs application contents and Article 25 governs recognition and enforcement documents. The requested State’s valid declarations and the current official instructions must also be checked. A general instruction to send every financial or family document is neither an adequate checklist nor a substitute for the relevant requirements.
Core information: specify the remedy and grounds; give the applicant’s name, contact details, address and date of birth, and the name and date of birth of each beneficiary. Identify the respondent, with address and date of birth where known. Article 11 distinguishes required particulars from information required only where known or appropriate. Explain missing details rather than treating a complete foreign address or employer record as invariably indispensable before assistance can be requested.
Existing decision: for recognition and enforcement, provide its complete text and the required evidence of enforceability in the State of origin. Where the respondent neither appeared nor was represented, Article 25 requires the appropriate evidence of notice and an opportunity to be heard or to challenge the decision. Additional certification may be required under the Convention’s specified procedures.
Arrears and adjustment: where necessary, supply a calculation identifying the amount due, the calculation date, payments received and any applicable indexation. State the currency and the basis for interest or adjustments. The schedule must correspond to the enforceable obligation; assumptions about conversion, penalties or limitation periods should not be inserted without a legal basis.
Establishment or modification: provide the supporting material appropriate to the issue, such as parentage records, the existing decision, evidence of the child’s needs, the parties’ resources and the change relied upon. Income, employer and asset information can be useful evidence, but its absence and the availability of official assistance must be considered under the applicable procedure.
Payment, assistance and safety: provide the information required for transfer of support and any documents needed to establish entitlement to legal assistance. Identify confidentiality or family-violence concerns before sensitive addresses are disclosed. Articles 38–40 protect information within their scope; they do not justify inaccurate particulars or withholding material indiscriminately.
Language and authentication are separate questions. Article 44 governs translations and accepted languages under the 2007 Convention, while Article 41 dispenses with legalisation or a similar formality within that Convention. Neither provision dispenses with reliable documents or the prescribed evidence. A New York Convention request must instead be prepared under its own requirements, including Article III and the relevant agencies’ instructions; Hague forms should not be imported automatically into that procedure.
6. Submit through the appropriate channel and maintain a reliable record
Under Article 9 of the 2007 Convention, a Chapter III application passes through the Central Authority of the Contracting State in which the applicant resides to the requested State’s Central Authority; residence excludes mere presence. The application category must be settled before the file is transmitted. Applicant forms, the Central Authorities’ prescribed transmittal form and supporting documents perform different functions.
Use the current official filing instructions rather than assuming that every country accepts the same electronic submission. The DRCI checks formal admissibility and documentation before transmission. Requests for clarification or supplementary documents should be answered coherently, with a record of what was supplied, when and by whom. Administrative acceptance does not establish the merits of the claim or confirm that the debtor has funds available.
Keep one chronology and payment ledger for the applicant, the authorities and any lawyers. Record transmission, acknowledgement, requests for information, service, decisions, recognition and enforcement measures as separate events. Article 12 provides for communication and progress information, but an acknowledgement is not a recovery date. Direct payments, other proceedings and changes of address or bank details should be reported through the appropriate channel to prevent inconsistent calculations or duplicated recovery.
7. Address service, settlement and enforcement as distinct stages
A private demand letter is not necessarily valid service of proceedings abroad. Article 6 includes assistance with service, while recognition may depend on the notice requirements addressed in Articles 22 and 25. Counsel should identify the procedure authorised in the relevant State and the applicable cooperation instrument. Informal contact and negotiation must not be represented as completing judicial service where the law requires more.
Voluntary payment, mediation and a properly structured settlement may assist recovery, but drafting an agreement does not guarantee compliance. A settlement concluded before or approved by a judicial or qualifying administrative authority may fall within Article 19’s definition of a decision. A separate maintenance arrangement under Article 30 is a different category and is subject to reservations. Brazil has reserved against recognition or enforcement of such arrangements concerning minors, incapacitated adults and elderly persons; an agreement must not be treated as internationally enforceable merely because a lawyer drafted it.
Once the required recognition or declaration of enforceability has been obtained, Article 32 places enforcement under the law of the State addressed, subject to the Convention. Article 34 identifies potential measures, including wage withholding and attachment of accounts, but the available measure and its conditions must be examined locally. A Brazilian order does not by itself direct a foreign employer or bank to transfer funds.
Recovery should be recorded against the correct obligation, currency and period, with bank instructions verified through a reliable channel. Article 35 promotes effective transfer arrangements; it does not promise payment by a fixed date or eliminate every transfer cost. Whether the debtor has identifiable earnings or assets remains a practical issue. Counsel’s reports should distinguish an application filed, a title recognised, a measure ordered and money actually received.
8. Check legal assistance, costs and any direct proceedings
Article 8 generally prevents Central Authorities from charging applicants for Convention services, subject to exceptional costs of specified measures and the required prior consent. Legal assistance is governed separately by Articles 14–17. Article 15 provides protection for creditor applications concerning parent-child maintenance for persons under twenty-one, read with the Convention’s qualifications, any relevant age reservation and declarations permitted by Article 16. Free administrative assistance, free legal representation and every ancillary expense are not interchangeable concepts.
The need for private counsel, the availability of public assistance, translation arrangements and possible litigation or enforcement expenses should be clarified before commitments are made. A private retainer has its own terms; the availability of a treaty route does not make privately chosen services free. Equally, the possibility of private representation must not obscure access to qualifying public assistance or imply that every applicant must first retain an international law firm.
Article 37 preserves direct requests to competent authorities through procedures available under the relevant domestic law. A direct approach may be appropriate, but it is subject to jurisdiction, Article 18 where relevant and its own representation and documentary requirements. It does not automatically carry all benefits of a Chapter III Central Authority application or guarantee faster recovery. The route should be selected for the actual case, with responsibility for each stage and realistic reporting arrangements established in advance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I request child support abroad before an order has been made?
Where the 2007 Convention applies, Article 10 includes establishment of a decision in the requested State, including parentage where necessary. The request must satisfy the applicable jurisdictional, substantive and evidentiary requirements. An application to establish support is different from enforcing unpaid amounts under an existing order.
Should a request involving Brazil go to the DRCI or the PGR?
That depends on the instrument. The DRCI is Brazil’s Central Authority under the 2007 Convention. The PGR handles requests remaining within the New York Convention’s scope. The 2007 Convention replaces the earlier Convention only insofar as their scopes coincide between the States concerned; routing should be checked before submission.
Is the Hague route available against a debtor in any country?
No. Verify the Convention’s operation between the relevant States, territorial coverage, dates, applicable reservations and the category of maintenance. Other treaties or domestic procedures may be relevant where it does not apply. Membership of the HCCH is not itself participation in every Hague Convention.
Must I hire a private international lawyer to apply?
Not as a universal condition of Central Authority assistance. Public legal assistance may be available under the applicable rules, and the DPU is an identified source of assistance for eligible beneficiaries in Brazil. Whether representation is needed for a particular court step depends on the route and local procedure. The DRCI does not act as the party’s lawyer.
Will a privately drafted agreement guarantee payment abroad?
No. Its legal form, enforceability and treatment in the requested State must be examined. Article 19 decisions and Article 30 maintenance arrangements are distinct, and Brazil’s Article 30 reservation is relevant to arrangements concerning minors. A promise to pay is not equivalent to recognition, an enforceable court measure or actual recovery.
Does international child support always end at eighteen or twenty-one?
Those ages concern aspects of the Convention’s scope and assistance rules; they do not provide a universal substantive termination rule. Check the relevant reservation or declaration, the governing law, the decision and Article 32(4), which addresses rules of the State of origin concerning the duration of the obligation.
Is the entire international procedure free?
The Convention distinguishes Central Authority services from legal assistance and other expenses. Articles 8 and 14–17 provide important protections, subject to their conditions. Translation, private legal services or other costs must be assessed separately. No universal fee quotation or blanket assurance that all expenditure is covered can be given without identifying the route and State.
How long will recovery take?
There is no universal completion date. Locating the debtor, establishing or recognising the obligation, service, available assets, enforcement and any challenge can affect progress. Communication deadlines or acknowledgement of a request should not be presented as a deadline for payment. Reports should identify the stage actually reached and the next dependency.
Dr. Mauricio Ejchel practises International Family Law at MF Ejchel International Family Law. OAB/SP 135.158. Avenida Marquês de São Vicente, 446, unit 706. Barra Funda, ZIP 01139-000, São Paulo, Brazil. www.internationallawyerbrazil.com
Reviewed on 17 October 2026.