HCCH Guide to Good Practice — Article 13(1)(b)
The 2020 HCCH publication, its legal status and its relevance to grave-risk arguments in return proceedings involving Brazil.
The HCCH published Part VI of its Guide to Good Practice under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention on 9 March 2020, following approval by its Members in December 2019. It is a reference for courts, Central Authorities and practitioners addressing the grave-risk exception. The publication is distinct from later HCCH forums on domestic violence and should be cited by its own title and year.
This page provides access to the English and French editions produced by the HCCH and the Portuguese translation supplied by Portugal’s Directorate-General for Justice Policy. The observations below distinguish the Guide’s advisory role, the Convention’s legal requirements and the Brazilian judicial framework.
English: the Guide’s scope and authority
The Guide is advisory: it neither amends the Convention nor binds courts to a predetermined result. Its examples illustrate approaches taken in particular jurisdictions, whose later case law must be checked. Paragraphs 7–8 expressly preserve case-specific adjudication. Its treatment of grave risk, protective measures and domestic violence supplies a framework for consultation rather than a substitute for applicable law.
A citation to an international guide therefore performs a different function from a citation to a binding domestic decision. Counsel should identify the proposition relied upon, the relevant paragraph and any national rule affecting its use. The fact that a foreign court reached a particular outcome does not establish that a Brazilian court must do the same on a different record.
The treaty test: grave risk is a distinct enquiry
Article 13(1)(b) permits refusal of return where the party opposing it establishes a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child, or an intolerable situation. The enquiry concerns the consequences of return. Articles 3 and 4 still require examination of the alleged wrongful removal or retention, relevant custody rights, habitual residence, the child’s age and the treaty’s application between the States involved.
The separate grounds must remain distinct. Non-exercise of custody rights, consent or subsequent acquiescence fall under Article 13(1)(a). A sufficiently mature child’s objection is addressed in Article 13(2). Settlement after the relevant one-year period belongs to Article 12, while Article 20 concerns fundamental principles protecting human rights and freedoms. Evidence relevant to one issue should not silently be treated as establishing another.
Article 19 makes clear that a return decision does not determine custody merits. Article 16 restricts custody adjudication in the requested State after notice of wrongful removal or retention, on its stated conditions. A return application consequently requires a different legal and evidential structure from a general claim that one parent offers the better home.
Domestic violence and the Brazilian framework
In ADIs 4,245 and 7,686, the Supremo Tribunal Federal addressed the Convention’s compatibility with the Constitution and the interpretation of Article 13(1)(b). The Court recognised the relevance of domestic violence against the mother even where the child is not the direct victim, provided objective and concrete indications of the situation of risk are demonstrated. Its judgment requires assessment with a gender perspective. This national framework must be considered alongside the 2020 Guide.
Neither dismissing an allegation because it concerns violence against a parent nor assuming that any allegation conclusively resolves the case provides an adequate analysis. The facts, their evidential support, the risk identified and the legal consequence sought must be addressed expressly. The distinction between an allegation, an interim protective measure and an adjudicated finding should remain visible throughout the record.
CNJ Resolution No. 449/2022 regulates judicial handling of Hague return proceedings in Brazil. It must be read with applicable subsequent measures and the STF’s determinations. A reference to the Guide alone does not establish Brazilian procedure or the competence of a particular court, and it does not guarantee a completion date.
Organising a file for legal assessment
As a practical approach, prepare a chronology identifying the alleged removal or retention, the events said to create a risk on return and the procedural steps already taken in either country. Separate contemporaneous records from later accounts. For each significant document, record its author, date, provenance, completeness and the factual proposition it supports. This organisation is a working method, not an additional treaty condition.
Relevant material may include court orders, medical records, police reports, communications and professional assessments, depending on the allegations. Their significance must be evaluated individually: the existence of a report is different from proof of everything reported. Preserve originals and surrounding context, including communications that qualify or contradict the proposed account. Confidential records should be shared through appropriate professional channels.
A proposed protective arrangement should be examined for its legal basis, the authority able to implement it, its commencement, duration and the response available if it is breached. Ask whether protection operates during the journey, immediately on arrival and while further proceedings are pending. The proposed terms should identify who must act and what evidence confirms that the arrangement is available.
This practical review should be coordinated with counsel in the State to which return is sought. A Brazilian order, a party’s assurance and a foreign enforceable measure may have different legal effects. Where enforceability or access to assistance remains uncertain, identify the unresolved point explicitly rather than presenting the proposed arrangement as already effective.
Português: finalidade e aplicação no Brasil
O Guia de Boas Práticas da HCCH, Parte VI, publicado em 2020, constitui referência consultiva para a análise do artigo 13(1)(b). Sua utilização não dispensa o exame da legislação aplicável nem a apreciação individualizada da prova. A tradução portuguesa disponibilizada pela HCCH foi fornecida pela Direção-Geral da Política de Justiça do Ministério da Justiça de Portugal.
A exceção de risco grave não se confunde com o julgamento do mérito da guarda. Também deve ser distinguida da integração prevista no artigo 12, do consentimento ou aquiescência do artigo 13(1)(a), da oposição da criança tratada no artigo 13(2) e da hipótese do artigo 20. A organização da defesa ou do pedido exige identificar qual fundamento está em discussão e quais elementos efetivamente o sustentam.
No Brasil, a leitura deve considerar a Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022 e o julgamento das ADIs 4.245 e 7.686 pelo STF. A violência doméstica contra a mãe pode integrar a análise do risco, ainda que a criança não seja vítima direta, mediante indícios objetivos e concretos da situação, sob perspectiva de gênero. Alegação, prova, providência protetiva e decisão judicial são categorias distintas.
Para a preparação do caso, recomenda-se reunir a cronologia, os documentos completos, as decisões de ambos os países e os elementos necessários à avaliação das medidas propostas. A viabilidade de proteção no Estado de retorno deve ser verificada com os profissionais competentes naquela jurisdição. Essa orientação prática não antecipa o resultado do processo.
Français : portée du Guide et affaires concernant le Brésil
Le Guide de bonnes pratiques de la HCCH, Partie VI, publié en 2020, constitue une référence consultative pour l’examen de l’article 13(1)(b). Il ne modifie pas la Convention et ne remplace ni le droit applicable ni l’appréciation des circonstances propres à chaque affaire. Les liens ci-dessous donnent accès aux différentes versions linguistiques.
L’exception de risque grave doit être distinguée des autres motifs de non-retour et du fond du droit de garde. L’article 19 précise qu’une décision de retour ne tranche pas ce dernier. Une argumentation utile doit donc rattacher chaque élément de preuve au fondement invoqué, sans transformer la procédure de retour en comparaison générale des capacités parentales.
Pour les affaires au Brésil, il convient d’intégrer la résolution CNJ nº 449/2022 ainsi que la décision du Supremo Tribunal Federal dans les ADI 4.245 et 7.686. La violence domestique contre la mère peut être prise en considération même lorsque l’enfant n’en est pas directement victime, sous réserve d’indices objectifs et concrets de la situation de risque et d’une analyse tenant compte de la perspective de genre.
La préparation pratique suppose de réunir les décisions et pièces complètes, de distinguer les allégations des constatations judiciaires et de vérifier les effets des mesures envisagées dans l’État de retour. Une coordination avec les professionnels de cet État permet d’identifier les formalités et les difficultés d’exécution avant de présenter une protection comme effective.