Child Relocation 2026Brazil
Dr. Mauricio Ejchel, of MF Ejchel International Family Law, is the author of the Brazil Law and Practice and Trends and Developments chapters in Chambers Child Relocation 2026.
The Brazilian contribution examines parental authority, consent and judicial permission for relocation, international child abduction and the operation of the 1980 Hague Convention. It also considers developments affecting return proceedings in Brazil.
To download the Brazil chapters, select Brazil in the Chambers download panel and complete the publisher’s form if requested.
Official contributor reference: Mauricio Ejchel — Brazil chapters on Chambers.
Published by Chambers and Partners. External independent publication.
Key facts
- Publisher
- Chambers and Partners
- Guide and edition
- Chambers Global Practice Guides · Child Relocation 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Brazil
- Publisher’s last update
- 8 September 2026
- Author
- Dr. Mauricio Ejchel
- Chapters
- Law and Practice · Trends and Developments
Law and Practice: chapter overview
Parental authority includes decisions about overseas travel and permanent residence. Article 1,634(IV) and (V) of the Brazilian Civil Code assigns those responsibilities to both parents. Travel permission should therefore be distinguished from consent to an international change of residence.
A contested relocation requires a concrete assessment of the child’s circumstances, the proposed arrangements abroad and continuing family relationships. The chapter discusses the evidence relevant to that assessment. Its 12–24 month estimate for contested first-instance proceedings is a practical indication, expressly qualified by the absence of a dependable national average; it is neither a statutory deadline nor a forecast for an individual case.
Relocation permission and Hague return proceedings answer different questions. Under Articles 3, 16 and 19 of the 1980 Hague Convention, a return application concerns wrongful removal or retention and the treaty’s exceptions. A return decision does not determine the merits of custody.
Read the Brazil Law and Practice chapter. Primary references: Brazilian Civil Code and 1980 Hague Convention.
Trends and Developments: the ADI 4245 and 7686 judgment
The chapter analyses the Supreme Federal Court’s joint constitutional review of the Convention. It explains the treaty’s constitutional compatibility and supralegal status, the interpretation of Article 13(1)(b) through a gender perspective, and the institutional directions concerning expedition and judicial specialisation. The one-year objective concerns final determination; it should not be presented as a guarantee that every proceeding will conclude within that period.
Dr. Mauricio Ejchel’s methodological reservation concerns hearing the two actions together: the broad challenge to the return system in ADI 4245 and the narrower interpretation issue in ADI 7686 warranted separate consideration. This is the author’s assessment of the method, without disputing the judgment’s binding force.
Questions this chapter answers
Does permission to travel also authorise permanent relocation?
The two permissions should be examined separately. A departure document does not necessarily establish agreement to change the child’s country of residence. See section 3.1, Legality.
What does a court examine in a disputed relocation application?
The enquiry concerns the particular child and the proposed living arrangements. A proposal should address care, schooling, housing, immigration status and how meaningful contact will be maintained. See section 2.3.1.
Does a Hague return order decide custody?
No. Article 19 expressly distinguishes return from a determination on the merits of custody; Article 16 restricts custody adjudication while the return question remains unresolved. See section 3.3.
Can a lawful holiday become a wrongful retention?
Yes. Keeping a child abroad beyond the agreed arrangements can engage Article 3 where custody rights under the law of habitual residence are breached and were being exercised. See section 3.1.
Must an applicant use the Central Authority?
Article 8 provides the Central Authority route. Article 29 preserves direct application to the competent judicial or administrative authority, subject to the requested State’s procedure. See section 3.2.
Does the Convention impose a six-week deadline for judgment?
Article 11 requires expeditious proceedings and permits a request for the reasons for delay after six weeks. It does not prescribe an automatic six-week deadline for a final judgment. See section 3.3.