International Child Abduction in Brazil

1. Emailing the Central Authority: prepare a usable cooperation request

Use the HCCH directory of designated Central Authorities to identify the appropriate official channel. Article 8 permits an application to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or of another Contracting State. The directory should be checked when assistance is sought, rather than relying on an address copied from an old article. Where the child’s whereabouts or immediate safety are uncertain, communicate that clearly and contact the competent emergency or police services as appropriate.

The first communication should identify the applicant, child and person alleged to have removed or retained the child; explain the custody rights relied upon; provide the available location information; and set out a dated account of the journey and alleged breach. Use a subject line identifying an international child-return enquiry and the child concerned. A description such as “missing” should reflect the facts: a known location does not prevent a Hague claim, while an unknown location requires specific tracing information.

Supply the authority’s forms and supporting documents through its accepted procedure. An email alone should not be assumed to constitute a complete or admissible request. Article 8 distinguishes the application’s required information from documents that may accompany or supplement it. Ask for acknowledgement, the reference number and any request for further material; retain the correspondence and evidence of the dates on which the relevant authorities received it.

For a request concerning a child in Brazil, the administrative framework is Portaria MJSP No. 688/2024. Articles 7–8 govern incoming cooperation and provide for review of the documents, requests for corrections or additions, enquiries about safety and access, efforts towards an agreed resolution, and referral for judicial action in the circumstances prescribed. Administrative assistance can be substantial without guaranteeing acceptance, immediate return or a particular judicial timetable.

2. Taking action: distinguish locating, protecting and returning the child

Locating the child, restricting further movement and determining return are separate objectives. Evidence of an imminent journey or a concrete safety concern may support an application for provisional protection, but the requested measure must have a legal basis and factual support. Under Articles 10 and 18 of CNJ Resolution No. 449/2022, the Federal Court considers provisional relief under the applicable rules of civil procedure, including passport retention or border alerts where a further wrongful movement is at risk.

Voluntary return or a lawful agreement may resolve a case without a contested return judgment. When compulsory implementation is required, the operative court order and its conditions matter. A request for the child to be located or protected does not itself establish entitlement to an immediate international return, and the involvement of the Federal Police should not be presented as an automatic consequence of filing a Hague application.

Article 20 of the Resolution allows the federal judge to seek assistance from the Advocacia da União and the Brazilian Central Authority within their functions when implementing a return decision. Psychological or social-work support and Federal Police accompaniment may also be requested where necessary. The practical arrangements must address the child’s welfare and safety, the persons involved, travel documentation and any protective conditions contained in the decision.

Prepare implementation as a distinct part of the file. Identify proposed travel arrangements, accommodation, relevant immigration or passport obstacles, medical needs and any orders intended to protect the child or accompanying parent. Portaria MJSP No. 688/2024, Articles 8(14) and 15–16, addresses coordination of return conditions, limits on Central Authority funding of travel or accommodation, and relevant travel-document and immigration steps. An enforceable decision still requires an organised means of carrying it out.

3. Contacting Brazilian counsel: who acts, and for whom?

Article 29 of the Convention preserves direct access to the competent authorities. A person alleging a breach of custody rights may instruct Brazilian counsel to assess a direct return application before the competent Federal Court, without first exhausting the Central Authority channel. Urgency, the quality of the evidence, available assistance and any existing proceedings should inform that choice. Private representation does not establish priority over other cases or guarantee faster adjudication.

The Autoridade Central Administrativa Federal (ACAF), within the Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública, is responsible for the Brazilian cooperation channel. Its role is broader than contacting the taking parent and proposing mediation. Article 7 of the Convention includes cooperation concerning location, provisional protection, voluntary return, relevant information, initiation or facilitation of proceedings, access rights, legal assistance and safe-return arrangements. The precise services available in a particular case should be confirmed through the official channel.

The Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) and the Ministério Público Federal (MPF) have different roles. Under Article 8 of Portaria MJSP No. 688/2024, an incoming case may be referred to the AGU for the necessary assessment and judicial measures where the stated conditions are met. In an action brought by the União, the AGU represents the União; it should not be described as the applicant’s personally retained lawyer. Article 8 of CNJ Resolution No. 449/2022 addresses participation by the interested person in such proceedings.

The MPF is not a substitute private representative for the left-behind parent. Article 9 of the Resolution requires it to be notified of all stages of the proceedings. Article 6 separately requires notice to the União when it is not the claimant, with the procedural possibilities specified there. These distinctions affect instructions, access to the file, communications and the way an interested person participates through counsel.

Administrative cooperation and a direct court case need not be treated as mutually exclusive activities. Share the procedural history, reference numbers, existing orders and relevant documents so that the authorities and lawyers assess the same facts. Article 13 of the Portaria expressly preserves recourse to the competent authorities after administrative closure. Closure should be analysed by reference to its reasons, without assuming either that it determines the judicial merits or that it can simply be ignored.

4. The 2022 procedural resolution and subsequent constitutional guidance

Brazil promulgated the Convention through Decree No. 3,413/2000. CNJ Resolution No. 449, of 30 March 2022, is a regulatory instrument issued by the Conselho Nacional de Justiça. It supplements the applicable substantive and procedural law in federal return and access proceedings. The CNJ’s official register identifies it as in force; its provisions must also be read consistently with the Convention and the Supreme Federal Court’s constitutional interpretation.

Article 10 provides for examination of provisional relief, service, a mediation hearing within thirty days where the judge considers mediation viable, and early evidentiary directions with the respondent’s participation. Article 14 provides for case management after unsuccessful mediation and an evidentiary hearing within thirty days, subject to the specified exceptions. These are procedural directions, not a representation that a disputed return case will necessarily finish within that period.

Article 19 calls for appeals to be determined within two ordinary court sessions after submission to the reporting judge. It neither abolishes appeals nor establishes a general rule depriving them of suspensive effect. Article 11 of the Convention separately permits a request for reasons if a decision has not been reached within six weeks from commencement. That six-week mechanism is an expedition safeguard, not an automatic return order or a universal completion guarantee.

On 27 August 2025, in ADIs 4,245 and 7,686, the Supremo Tribunal Federal confirmed the Convention’s compatibility with the Constitution and its supralegal status. The Court required a child-centred application with a gender perspective and recognised the relevance of objective and concrete indications of domestic violence to Article 13(1)(b), including where the child is not the direct victim. Its directions also address structural and procedural improvements, including preparation of measures aimed at a final return decision within one year.

That one-year adjudication objective is distinct from Article 12’s interval between the wrongful event and commencement of proceedings. Neither should be substituted for the other. The case plan should identify the remaining steps, evidentiary issues and means of monitoring progress; neither the existence of procedural deadlines nor private representation determines the outcome.

5. Criminal allegations and the civil return application

“Wrongful” under Article 3 describes a breach of custody rights for the Convention’s civil mechanism. It is not a finding that every taking parent has committed the Brazilian offence of kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment. Article 148 of the Código Penal concerns deprivation of liberty and contains its own elements and qualified forms. Article 249 addresses removal of a person under eighteen or an interdicted person from legally protected custody, with the qualifications stated there. Their application requires a separate examination of the conduct and legal circumstances.

A blanket assertion that international parental abduction in Brazil is invariably punishable by one to three years’ imprisonment is therefore unreliable. The relevant offence, if any, cannot be selected from the international label alone. Concealment, forged documents, violence or breach of particular orders may require investigation, but allegations and proof must remain distinct. A civil return application need not wait for a criminal conviction.

Disclose relevant police reports, warrants and protection orders to counsel and the authorities dealing with the return request. Article 8(2) of Portaria MJSP No. 688/2024 specifically provides for enquiries about criminality and an arrest warrant in the requesting country, and about domestic violence and available protection. Those matters can affect the practical safety arrangements; criminal proceedings and police cooperation do not themselves substitute for the Hague determination.

6. Evidence: assemble a record that can be used by both systems

Preserve the original material and prepare a dated, indexed set of readable copies. An organised PDF bundle can assist review, but it should not replace original electronic records, attachments or information needed to identify the author and date of a communication. Separate direct knowledge, documents and reported information. A narrative is useful when each material event can be connected to its evidence.

Habitual residence and the exercise of custody rights deserve their own evidentiary treatment. School or nursery records, vaccination and medical material, housing information and records of the child’s ordinary life may assist. Explain the legal source of the right to decide residence and provide evidence of actual care or decision-making. Neither the child’s nationality nor a single school certificate determines every issue. Portaria MJSP No. 688/2024, Article 8, provides the incoming administrative document list, including items dependent on existence or availability.

Translations must suit the chosen route. Article 17 of the Portaria permits simple or sworn translations, including automated resources considered understandable by the Central Authority. Article 17 of the Resolution permits comprehension resources in its specified circumstances, including where legal aid applies or a sworn version could delay proceedings. Article 23 of the Convention dispenses with legalisation or an equivalent formality within its scope. These provisions do not remove the need to identify the documents reliably or to address a genuine dispute over their meaning or authenticity.

Where further evidence about foreign law or wrongfulness is needed, Articles 14–15 of the Convention provide relevant mechanisms. The return court may take notice of the law and relevant decisions of the habitual-residence State in the manner Article 14 permits; an Article 15 determination may be requested where obtainable. A foreign custody order is evidence with a particular legal function, not a self-executing instruction to remove a child from Brazil.

7. The one-year interval: record the legal events, not just the first email

Article 12 is not a twelve-month statute of limitations extinguishing the ability to seek return. It distinguishes proceedings commenced before the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State less than one year after the wrongful removal or retention from proceedings commenced after that interval. In the latter category, return remains the rule unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in the new environment. Expiry does not itself establish settlement or make return legally unavailable.

The first evidentiary question is the date of the wrongful event. Removal and retention may occur on different facts. An authorised holiday can be followed by an allegedly unlawful refusal to return, requiring examination of the permission, agreed duration and subsequent communications. The interval under Article 12 is measured to commencement before the relevant authority, not to the eventual judgment or the length of the litigation.

The Brazilian procedural landmarks must then be stated accurately. Article 14(3) of CNJ Resolution No. 449/2022 makes adaptation evidence inadmissible where less than one year passed before receipt of the international cooperation request by the Brazilian Central Authority or, for a direct claim through counsel, commencement of judicial proceedings. Article 12(V) of the Resolution also refers to receipt of the cooperation request by Brazil. These provisions should be identified as the Brazilian rules alongside the Convention’s own wording.

Obtain the Brazilian receipt acknowledgement or court filing record. Contacting counsel, notifying a police station, sending an initial enquiry or lodging material with an authority abroad should not be assumed, without examining the relevant facts and rules, to prove either Brazilian receipt or commencement of the Brazilian action. A tracing difficulty or an applicant’s lack of location information is not a reason to rewrite Article 12 as a general, automatically suspended filing deadline.

Where the relevant commencement or receipt was timely, later schooling or social integration does not independently make the settlement defence available merely because the case continues. A different properly established exception may still require determination, including grave risk. Keep the settlement timeline separate from the evidence supporting any safety objection and from the separate question of delay in adjudication.

8. Articles 12, 13 and 20: identify each contested issue separately

The respondent may dispute whether the Convention applies or whether Article 3’s requirements have been established. Article 13(1)(a) separately concerns non-exercise of custody rights, prior consent and subsequent acquiescence. Permission for a holiday is not necessarily consent to indefinite relocation, and a communication said to show acquiescence must be considered in context. The evidence and the legal ground should be identified rather than grouped under a general appeal to the child’s welfare.

Article 13(1)(b) addresses a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an otherwise intolerable situation on return. Under the STF’s 2025 holding, objective and concrete indications of domestic violence can bring that exception into consideration even where the child is not directly victimised. Allegations require careful examination and an effective opportunity to address the relevant material. They should neither be dismissed through a presumption of fabrication nor treated as automatically sufficient to determine the application.

A child’s objection is a distinct ground under Article 13, requiring an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to consider the child’s views. The Convention fixes no numerical minimum for that assessment. A view about a preferred household should not be treated without analysis as the same thing as an objection to return. The court must examine the particular statement and circumstances without turning the return case into a general competition between the parents.

Article 20 concerns the requested State’s fundamental principles protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is different from Article 12 settlement and from Article 13 grave risk. A confined return enquiry still requires proper determination of each ground that is available and supported; describing the Convention’s exceptions as limited does not authorise exclusion of relevant safety evidence or procedural safeguards.

Existing Brazilian custody proceedings must also be identified. Article 16 limits determination of custody merits after notice of a wrongful removal or retention on the conditions stated there; Article 17 prevents the mere existence of a requested-State custody decision from supplying a refusal ground. Articles 21–22 of CNJ Resolution No. 449/2022 address coordination with state-court custody litigation. Urgent protection and the merits of custody are distinct matters, and the appropriate procedural response must match the relief sought.

9. Sean Goldman: historical importance and the limits of comparison

The Sean Goldman dispute remains an important part of the public history of international child return involving Brazil. A contemporary Câmara dos Deputados account described Sean’s arrival with his mother for a family holiday in 2004, her subsequent decision to remain in Brazil and litigation pursued by his father in the Federal Courts. Holiday travel followed by a refusal to return requires distinguishing the original journey from the later retention. A public account of this dispute does not replace proof of the travel permission and alleged wrongful event in another case.

The findings in the United States’ Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014 record the 2004 abduction and Sean’s return to his father on 24 December 2009. The Act, Public Law 113-150, establishes U.S. governmental reporting and response mechanisms concerning international child abduction. Its title and legislative purpose belong to that jurisdiction; the Act does not replace a Brazilian return application or prescribe the result of another family’s case.

This history illustrates the interaction of litigation, institutional cooperation and public attention. It supplies no general inference that publicity is necessary, that all Brazilian courts adopt the same approach, or that a later case should follow the same factual outcome. A historical account, a court’s legal holding and a legislative policy response must be cited and evaluated according to their different functions.

10. Broadcast material and responsible case comparison

Public discussion of individual disputes provides social context, while applicable law and contested facts require their own sources. The following existing recordings are retained as media resources: a Domingo Espetacular report concerning a Switzerland–Brazil dispute and the Casos Reais discussion of the Raquel Cantarelli case. Their inclusion does not establish professional representation, a particular litigation result attributable to this office or the accuracy of every statement made in a broadcast.

For legal and institutional research, use the Convention text, current Central Authority directory and treaty status table. The HCCH’s International Hague Network of Judges has a judicial cooperation function; it should not be confused with an authority to which a parent can apply for an individual return order. The U.S. Department of State’s child-abduction resources provide country-specific assistance information rather than Brazilian judicial instructions.

Police location assistance also has its own channel. INTERPOL describes a Yellow Notice as a missing-person alert, including for parental abduction, requested through police and a National Central Bureau. It is not itself a civil return judgment. The Polícia Federal’s official portal and ACAF’s current guidance should be used for relevant Brazilian institutional information.