Brazil has adopted an unusual interpretation of the one-year provision in Article 12 of the  Hague Abduction Convention, which creates a significant trap for the unwary.

 
Article 12 of the Convention provides that if “the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State” where the child is located is more than one year from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned “shall order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.”
 
Courts have generally concluded that the relevant period ends on the date that a judicial proceeding for the child’s return is commenced and that the mere filing of an application with a Central Authority does not “stop the clock” for this purpose, unless the specific administrative tribunal itself has jurisdiction to issue a return order. Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F. Supp. 413 (E.D. Mich. 1997); V.B.M. v. D.L.J. [2004] N.J. No. 321; 2004 NLCA 56; Re M. (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1996] 1 FLR 315; Perrin v. Perrin 1994 SC 45, 1995 SLT 81, 1993 SCLR 949; Plonit v. Ploni,  Israel Family Appeal 548/04.
 
However, the Brazilian Central Authority states that Brazilian courts hold that the time period is tolled as soon as an application is received by the Central Authority in Brazil.
 
In its response to the HCCH questionnaire concerning the practical operation of the Hague C  onvention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Prel. Doc. No 2 of January 2017), the Brazilian Central Authority states that:
 
“The most impressive change on the Brazilian jurisprudence noticeable at least since 2013 is the consideration that the 1-year period of article 12 has its “ad quem” term not at the commencement of the judicial procedures, but at the moment that the file has been received at the Brazilian Central Authority. This scenario has a potential effect on reducing the number of cases where the allegation regarding the settlement of the child to his/her new environment is considered.”
The Brazilian claim that this will reduce the number of cases in which the issue is raised of whether or not a child is settled in its new environment is mistaken. Shortening the one-year period will obviously have exactly the opposite effect.
 
The text above is basic a vision of the world renowned Mr. Jeremy Morley, probably in of the best expert in Child Abduction in the World.
 

Currently such understanding is no longer accurate, since the Brazilian Supreme Court already consolidated jurisprudence in 2020 stating that the term related in Article 12 of the Hague Convention initiate when a request of return a child is made by any Member State and received by the Brazilian Central Authority. 

ADVOGADO INTERNACIONAL

Dr. Mauricio Ejchel

International Lawyer, graduated from the Law School of the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, Postgraduate in International Relations at Laureate International Universities, admitted to the Brazilian Bar in 1995, founding partner of MF Ejchel Advocacy International (est. 1996), law specialist commentator at the Brazilians TV Networks and columnist for Radio Justice, that belongs to the Brazilian Supreme Court.

Dr. Ejchel concentrates his expertise on international family law, lectures on international child abduction and other international family law topics on television and radio show and is frequently featured in the print media.


As an academic writer, has several legal articles published both in Portuguese and English.
With over 25 years of legal experience and commitment to the advocacy, he provides strategic legal advices based on his ability to manage complex cases and negotiate legal contingencies, being also an experienced barrister, obstinately acting before the Brazilian Courts in numerous lawsuits.

EnglishPortuguese