Child Abduction to Brazil: The First 72 Hours for a Left-Behind Parent

The call usually comes from someone else. A teacher noticed the empty desk. A grandparent in Brazil answered the phone with a different voice. Or the message arrives directly: the visit that was supposed to end on Sunday has no end date anymore, and the child who should be at school in Boston, Lisbon, or Leeds is now in Belo Horizonte, with the other parent, and is not coming back.

The next three days will feel like they demand everything at once, and much of what you read online in those days will be either terrifying or wrong. This guide is a slower, more useful thing. It sets out what actually matters between now and Thursday: whether the situation is a Hague Convention case, what to file and where, which documents to gather, what to avoid saying and doing, and what happens once the Brazilian system takes the file.

The thing this guide turns on is a single distinction. A return application under the 1980 Hague Convention is not a custody case. It does not ask who is the better parent. It asks whether the child was wrongfully taken from, or kept away from, the country where the child’s life was, and if so, it sends the child back so that the custody question can be decided there. Keeping that distinction clear, in what you file and in what you say, is the most valuable thing a left-behind parent can do in the first 72 hours.

This is educational content prepared by the ZS Advogados Associados team for parents outside Brazil whose child has been brought to or retained in Brazil by the other parent. It complements our overview of international child abduction and the Hague Convention in Brazil, which explains the Convention’s architecture, and our guides on child custody in Brazil for foreign parents and custody in international marriages. Those posts explain the law; this one is about the first days.

Is this a Hague Convention case?

Before anything else, run four checks. The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, concluded at The Hague on 25 October 1980, is in force in Brazil through Decreto 3.413/2000. It applies when all four of the following are present.

1. The child is under 16. The Convention ceases to apply on the child’s sixteenth birthday (article 4), even mid-proceeding.
2. The child was habitually resident in a contracting state immediately before the removal or retention. Habitual residence is a question of fact, the centre of the child’s life: school, home, doctor, friends, the ordinary rhythm of the year. It is not decided by nationality or by where a parent is registered. Most of North America, Europe, and a large part of Latin America and Asia are contracting states; the current list is maintained by the Hague Conference (HCCH).
3. You held custody rights under the law of the country of habitual residence. These rights can come from a court order, from a parenting agreement with legal effect, or from the law itself, which is common: in many countries both parents hold custody rights automatically, including the right to decide where the child lives. A parent with no court order is not necessarily a parent without custody rights.
4. You were actually exercising those rights when the child was removed or retained, or would have been but for the removal (article 3).

Two situations count as “abduction” in the Convention’s civil sense, and the second is the one families miss. A wrongful removal is the child being taken across the border without your consent. A wrongful retention is the child travelling with your consent, for a holiday or a family visit, and not being returned on the agreed date; it becomes wrongful on the day the child should have come back, and that date matters later for the article 12 clock.

If any element is missing, the return mechanism is not available; the routes are different, and we address them below.

Legal basis: Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (The Hague, 1980), arts. 1, 3, 4, and 5, promulgated in Brazil by Decreto nº 3.413, de 14 de abril de 2000; Brazil deposited its instrument of accession on 19 October 1999 and the Convention entered into force for Brazil on 1 January 2000. On 27 August 2025, deciding ADI 4245 and ADI 7686 (rel. Min. Luís Roberto Barroso), the Supremo Tribunal Federal held unanimously that the Convention is compatible with the Constitution and has supralegal status in Brazilian law.

Speak to counsel — habitual residence and custody rights are the two elements most often contested. A family that moved between countries in the year before the removal, or a parent whose rights rest on a statute rather than an order, should have the elements analysed before filing, because the application form asks for them and the other side will test them.

What should you do in the first 24 hours?

The first day is not about filing; it is about not making the case harder. A short list, in order.

Write everything down while it is fresh. The date and time you last saw or spoke to the child. What was agreed about the trip, in what words, on which app. When you realised the child was not coming back. Who told you what. A dated, factual timeline written on day one is worth more than any reconstruction three months later.

Preserve the communications, and stop deleting anything. Screenshots of messages, call logs, emails, the booking confirmation, the itinerary, the boarding pass photo the child sent from the airport. Export chats where the app allows it. Back up to somewhere the other parent cannot reach.

Do not say anything that reads as consent. Under article 13(a), return can be refused if you consented to the removal beforehand or acquiesced afterwards. “Fine, stay until the end of the school year and we will talk” is the kind of sentence that becomes an exhibit. You can be calm, you can be kind, and you can still say plainly, in writing, that you do not agree to the child remaining in Brazil and you expect the child’s return.

Do not threaten, and do not go and get the child yourself. A parent who turns up unannounced and attempts to remove the child from Brazil creates a second wrongful removal, possible criminal exposure in Brazil, and a narrative the other side will use. The Convention exists precisely so that the state does this, in an orderly way.

Find out where the child physically is. City, address if you know it, the school if enrolled, the relatives involved. You will be asked. If you do not know, say so; locating the child is one of the things the Brazilian Central Authority does.

Contact two people. The Central Authority of the country where the child was habitually resident, whose contact details are on the HCCH website, and a lawyer who handles Hague cases in Brazil. Neither needs a complete file to have a first conversation.

Keep the child’s life in your country alive. Do not withdraw the child from school, cancel the doctor, or give up the apartment; habitual residence is proven by exactly these things.

Where do you file, and does it cost anything?

There are three doors, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Your own Central Authority. Every contracting state designates one (article 6). In the United States it is the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues; in the United Kingdom, the ICACU; in Portugal, the DGRSP; other countries have their own. You file the return application there, in your language, with their forms and their guidance. They transmit it to Brazil. For most left-behind parents this is the natural first door, because it is close, it is in your language, and the people there do this every week.

ACAF, the Brazilian Central Authority. The Autoridade Central Administrativa Federal sits within the Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública and receives applications for the return of children brought to Brazil. It is run by the Coordenação-Geral de Adoção e Subtração Internacional de Crianças e Adolescentes, inside the Departamento de Recuperação de Ativos e Cooperação Jurídica Internacional (DRCI) of the Secretaria Nacional de Justiça, in Brasília; its published contact address for these applications is subtracao.acaf@mj.gov.br, and the Ministry’s page on subtração internacional de crianças carries the current postal address and telephone. You may apply to ACAF directly (article 8 allows an applicant to apply to the Central Authority of any contracting state), and a Brazilian lawyer can help prepare the application in Portuguese. ACAF does not charge fees. Our service page on filing a Hague Convention return petition in Brazil sets out the route step by step.

Direct application to a Brazilian court. Article 29 preserves the applicant’s right to apply directly to the courts of the requested state; this is a strategic decision for specific situations, usually with Brazilian counsel, not a default.

What the Central Authorities do is set out in article 7: locate the child, prevent further harm, try to secure a voluntary return, exchange information, and initiate or facilitate proceedings. In Brazil, after the administrative phase, the return action itself is brought before the federal courts by the Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU), the body that represents the Brazilian state. It acts because Brazil has a treaty obligation, not as your private counsel, which is why many parents also engage their own Brazilian lawyer to follow the case, propose measures, and protect their position.

One point of Brazilian procedure is worth knowing from the outset. Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022, which governs how these actions are handled, treats the person claiming custody rights under the law of the child’s habitual residence as an interessada in the action brought by the Union, entitled to intervene as an assistant (art. 8). You are not a spectator to the AGU’s case; you have a recognised place in it, and the Union is required to keep you informed of the acts in which your participation is useful or necessary.

Legal basis: arts. 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 25, 26, and 29 of the 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto 3.413/2000). Federal jurisdiction over return actions follows from art. 109 of the Constitution (cases founded on a treaty between Brazil and a foreign state); the AGU’s role rests on its constitutional mandate to represent the Union (art. 131) and on the Convention’s Central Authority framework. Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022, arts. 6º (the Union is summoned and may take either side or act as amicus curiae), 8º (the left-behind parent as interessada, intervening as assistant), and 20 (the federal judge may call on the AGU and on the Brazilian Central Authority to execute a return order).

What documents should you assemble in the first 72 hours?

The application form, whichever Central Authority you use, tracks article 8: identity of applicant, child, and the person alleged to have removed the child; the child’s date of birth; the grounds for the claim; and the child’s probable whereabouts. Behind each line sits a document. The table below is organised by what each document proves, which is how a Brazilian judge will read it.

What it proves	Documents	Notes
Identity and age	Birth certificate; passport or ID copies of the child and both parents; recent photograph of the child	Age fixes article 4; photographs help location
Habitual residence	School enrolment and attendance; paediatrician or clinic records; lease, mortgage, or utility bills; the child’s immigration or residence status; club, church, or activity memberships	The more ordinary the document, the better it proves an ordinary life
Your custody rights	Court orders and parenting plans; a separation or divorce judgment; a certified extract of the statute if rights arise by law; a certificate or affidavit under article 15 if your Central Authority issues one	Article 15 lets the requested court ask for a decision or determination from the home state that the removal was wrongful
Actual exercise of rights	School and medical correspondence addressed to you; photographs and calendars; evidence of financial support; messages arranging the child’s routine	Rebuts the “absent parent” narrative
The removal or retention	Travel bookings; the agreed return date in writing; messages announcing the decision to stay; the timeline you wrote on day one	For a retention, the agreed return date starts the article 12 clock
Whereabouts	Known address; relatives’ names; the Brazilian school if known; social-media posts with location	Give what you have; ACAF and the Polícia Federal can locate the child

Formalities can wait a few days. Foreign public documents used before Brazilian authorities are ordinarily apostilled (for Hague Apostille Convention countries) and sworn-translated into Portuguese, and our guide on apostilles and document validation for Brazil covers the mechanics. But a Central Authority will open a file on the basis of copies and add certified versions as they arrive. Do not delay the application to perfect the paperwork.

Legal basis: arts. 8 (contents of the application), 14 (judicial notice of the law of the habitual residence without formalities), 15 (declaration of wrongfulness from the home state), and 23 (no legalisation required for Convention purposes) of the 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto 3.413/2000).

Speak to counsel — the article 15 route can help or slow the case. In some countries a formal declaration that the removal was wrongful is quick and persuasive; in others it takes months. Whether to request one, and when, is a decision for counsel in both countries.

What happens once ACAF has the application?

Administrative phase. ACAF reviews the application, confirms the Convention elements on their face, and, where the whereabouts are unknown, works to locate the child with the support of the Polícia Federal and, where needed, Interpol. It then contacts the parent in Brazil and proposes a voluntary return or an agreed solution (article 7(c) and article 10). Some cases end here, with a return organised around school dates, or with an agreement about contact and jurisdiction that both parents can live with. Mediation at this stage is not weakness; it is faster than any judgment, and the Convention expressly favours it.

Judicial phase. If there is no voluntary return, the case goes to the AGU, which files a return action before a federal judge of the Justiça Federal in the region where the child is. The typical claim seeks the child’s return to the country of habitual residence and asks for provisional measures. Where there is a risk of a fresh removal, Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022 directs the judge to consider measures restricting the travel of the child and of the person the child is with, such as retention of passports and an alert to the border authorities (art. 18, §1º); where the child appears to be at risk, protective placement may be considered (art. 18, §2º). The judge examines the Convention elements, hears the parent in Brazil, may order a psychosocial or expert assessment, and decides whether return is due or whether an exception under articles 12, 13, or 20 applies. Appeals lie to the Tribunal Regional Federal and, on questions of federal law and treaty interpretation, potentially to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça.

What the court does not do. Article 16 directs the authorities of the requested state not to decide the merits of custody once they are notified of a wrongful removal or retention, until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned. The federal judge is deciding where the custody dispute belongs, not who wins it. This is the distinction we began with, and it is the answer to almost every “but the other parent says” argument you will hear in the first weeks.

Timelines, honestly. The Convention’s article 11 sets a six-week benchmark after which the applicant or a Central Authority may request a statement of the reasons for delay. Brazil has built a procedural calendar around that benchmark. Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022, which governs the handling of these actions, has the federal judge rule on any urgent measure on receiving the petition and schedule a mediation hearing within 30 days (art. 10); sets 15 days for the defence (art. 11); requires the trial hearing to be listed within 30 days of the case being organised, extendable exceptionally by a further 30 (art. 14); provides that the trial hearing is not adjourned save for force majeure (art. 15); and requires appeals to be decided within two ordinary sessions (art. 19). The Corregedoria Nacional de Justiça may open a monitoring file on individual cases (art. 25).

Those are the deadlines on paper. In practice Brazilian cases generally run longer, with real regional variation between federal courts, which is why, in ADI 4245 and ADI 7686 in August 2025, the STF ordered a set of structural measures: concentrating these actions in specialised federal courts and appellate panels, marking them for priority processing, and creating specialised support units in the Tribunais Regionais Federais, together with a CNJ working group tasked with proposing rules aimed at a final decision on return within one year. Nobody serious will give you a date. What a well-run file does is remove the reasons for delay that are within your control: incomplete documents, unclear custody rights, unanswered requests from the court.

Legal basis: arts. 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20 of the 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto 3.413/2000); Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022, arts. 10–20 and 25 (procedure, deadlines, appeals, monitoring), art. 18, §1º (where there is a risk of a fresh removal, the judge considers measures restricting travel, such as retention of the passport and an alert to the border authorities), and art. 22 (federal–state court communication); provisional and urgent measures follow the Código de Processo Civil (Lei nº 13.105/2015), arts. 294–311; structural measures determined by the STF in ADI 4245 and ADI 7686, judged 27 August 2025.

What are the exceptions the other parent will raise?

You will meet them early, often in the first message from the other side. Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022 lists them in article 12, which is a useful map of what a Brazilian defence is allowed to be about.

• No custody right, or no actual exercise of it (article 3). That you did not hold custody rights under the law of the child’s habitual residence, or were not exercising them.
• Consent or acquiescence (article 13(a)). That you agreed to the move, before or after. This is why day-one messages matter and why “we will see” is dangerous.
• Grave risk (article 13(b)). That return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation. This is the most litigated exception worldwide, and its scope in Brazil was settled recently. On 27 August 2025, in ADI 4245 and ADI 7686, the STF held that article 13(1)(b) must be read in light of the child’s best interests (Constitution, art. 227) and with a gender perspective, so that it applies where there are objective and concrete indications of domestic violence, even where the child is not the direct victim. A preference for Brazil’s schools, family, or climate is still not a grave risk, and the exception is still decided on evidence rather than assertion. But it is no longer accurate to describe Brazilian practice as uniformly narrow: where violence is credibly indicated, the court will not order an immediate return, and it will consider whether protective measures in the country of habitual residence answer the concern.
• The child’s objection (article 13, second paragraph). Where the child has reached an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of their views. Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022 frames this defence as the preference of a child over twelve not to return (art. 12, III), and requires the judge to hear the child and verify that what the child says is free from undue influence by the person who removed or retained them (art. 16). Brazilian federal courts use multidisciplinary teams for this.
• Settlement after one year (article 12). Discussed below; it is why speed matters.
• Fundamental principles (article 20). Return would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested state relating to human rights. Rarely applied.

None of these is decided on assertion; each is decided on evidence, which is one more reason to build the file from the first day rather than argue with the other parent by message.

Legal basis: arts. 12, 13, and 20 of the 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto 3.413/2000); Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022, arts. 12 (grounds a defence may raise) and 16 (hearing the child and verifying the absence of undue influence); STF, ADI 4245 and ADI 7686, judged 27 August 2025, on the interpretation of art. 13(1)(b).

Why does the one-year mark matter so much?

Article 12 draws a line at one year between the wrongful removal or retention and the start of proceedings. Before the line, the court “shall order the return of the child forthwith” unless an exception applies. After the line, return is still the rule, but the court may refuse it if it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in the new environment.

For the left-behind parent, this has three consequences. First, filing early removes an entire defence from the table. Second, every month of delay in the first year is also a month in which the child is enrolling in a Brazilian school, learning the language, and building the very ties the other side will later describe as settlement. Third, in a retention case, the year runs from the date the child should have returned, so the “agreed return date” in your messages is not a detail; it is the start of the clock.

Brazilian practice answers the counting question more clearly than the Convention text alone does. Under Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022, the settlement defence is available only where a year or more had passed at the date the Brazilian State received the international cooperation request (art. 12, V) — that is, when the application reached ACAF, not when a judge later took the file. The same Resolução goes further: where less than a year separates the wrongful removal or retention from that date, evidence about the child’s adaptation to Brazil is inadmissible (art. 14, §3º). Reaching a Central Authority early does not merely help the argument; it closes the door on the evidence behind it.

Legal basis: art. 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto 3.413/2000); Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022, arts. 12, V, and 14, §3º.

What can you do from abroad, and when does it help to be in Brazil?

Almost all of the first 72 hours happens where you are; you do not need to be in Brazil to open the case. As the case develops, three things involve Brazil more directly.

Representation. A Brazilian lawyer can act for you under a power of attorney (procuração), signed abroad. If you are a foreign national — as most left-behind parents in these cases are — that means signing before a notary in your own country, then having the instrument apostilled under the 1961 Hague Convention (in force in Brazil since 2016, Decreto nº 8.660/2016), or legalised at a Brazilian consulate where your country is not a party, and sworn-translated in Brazil. A Brazilian consulate can draw up the instrument itself only for a grantor who holds Brazilian nationality, since consular notarial and civil-registry acts are performed for Brazilians abroad (LINDB, Decreto-Lei nº 4.657/1942, art. 18). The AGU brings the return action; your own counsel follows it, proposes provisional measures, responds to allegations, and keeps you informed in your language. The two roles complement each other.

Hearings and assessments. Brazilian courts commonly allow participation by video for a party abroad, particularly since the procedural reforms of recent years, though a judge may want to see a parent in person at a conciliation hearing or during an expert assessment. Whether travelling is worth it is a case decision.

Contact with the child. The Convention protects access rights (article 21), and interim contact, by video or in person, can be organised through ACAF or ordered by the federal judge while the return case runs. Visiting the child in Brazil under an agreed or ordered arrangement is different in every way from arriving unannounced. It keeps you present in the child’s life, creates a record, and often lowers the temperature. It must be planned with counsel so that it cannot be portrayed as an attempt at removal.

Our guide on custody orders across borders explains the undertakings and mirror orders sometimes used to structure agreed contact and agreed returns.

Legal basis: art. 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto 3.413/2000); representation by procurador and remote participation follow the Código de Processo Civil (Lei nº 13.105/2015), including its provisions on powers of attorney (arts. 104–105) and on videoconference hearings (art. 236, §3º, and art. 385, §3º).

What if it is not a Hague case?

Sometimes one of the four elements is missing. The child is 16. The country of habitual residence is not a contracting state, or the Convention is not in force between it and Brazil (accessions need acceptance by each existing state, which is a point to check for some countries). Or your rights under the home law were access rights, not custody rights, and article 21 rather than article 12 is the applicable tool.

In those situations, the case moves onto ordinary ground. Within the Americas, the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children (1989) overlaps with the Hague framework for some countries. Outside any treaty, a foreign custody order can be brought to Brazil for recognition by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, the court that homologates foreign judgments, or a Brazilian family court can be asked to regulate custody and contact directly under the Código Civil. These routes are slower and are decided on Brazilian family-law principles, above all the best interests of the child. Our guide on child custody for foreign parents in Brazil explains what a Brazilian family court looks at.

A word on the criminal route. Brazilian criminal law contains an offence of subtração de incapazes (Código Penal, art. 249), and some home countries treat parental abduction as a crime. Criminal complaints are sometimes filed, and sometimes they help locate a child. They can also harden positions, complicate a voluntary return, and be used by the other side to argue that returning the child means separating the child from a parent who cannot travel. Whether and where to make a criminal complaint is a decision to take with counsel in both countries, not a reflex.

Legal basis: art. 35 (temporal scope) and art. 38 (accessions and their acceptance) of the 1980 Hague Convention; Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children (Montevideo, 1989), promulgated in Brazil by Decreto nº 1.212/1994; recognition of foreign judgments by the STJ under art. 105, I, “i”, of the Constitution and arts. 960–965 of the CPC/2015; Código Penal (Decreto-Lei nº 2.848/1940), art. 249.

What does it cost, and who pays?

Costs come in three layers. The Convention machinery is free of charge. Article 26 requires each Central Authority to bear its own costs and forbids Central Authorities and other public services from charging the applicant for lodging an application, including any cost arising from the participation of a lawyer or legal adviser. A contracting state may reserve against that last obligation, but Brazil did not: the only reservation Brazil made on acceding, recorded in article 1 of Decreto 3.413/2000 and permitted by article 42 of the Convention, is to article 24, and it does something narrower — it requires foreign documents filed in the court record to be accompanied by a Portuguese translation made by an official sworn translator. Article 25 adds that nationals and habitual residents of contracting states are entitled to legal aid and legal assistance in Brazil on the same terms as Brazilians. Because the AGU brings the return action, the left-behind parent is not billed for the state’s counsel in that proceeding. What article 26 does allow the authorities to charge for are the expenses occasioned by the return of the child itself.

Your own lawyers are a private cost, in your country and in Brazil; firms structure these engagements in different ways, and Brazilian professional rules restrict the advertising of fees, so no figures appear here. Logistics are the third layer: translations, apostilles, travel for hearings or contact visits, and the return journey itself. Article 26 also allows a court that orders return to direct the person who removed or retained the child to pay the applicant’s necessary expenses, including travel, the costs of legal representation, and the costs of locating the child, and this is sometimes sought.

On translations, one practical note. The article 24 reservation is why sworn translations matter in Brazil. But Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022 tempers it for the case in front of the judge: any means may be used to understand a foreign-language document, including machine translation, where the party has the benefit of free legal aid or where waiting for a sworn version would delay the proceeding (art. 17).

Legal basis: arts. 24, 25, 26, and 42 of the 1980 Hague Convention and art. 1 of Decreto nº 3.413/2000 (Brazil’s reservation to art. 24); Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022, arts. 17 and 23; Brazilian free legal assistance under arts. 98–102 of the CPC/2015 for parties who qualify.

Hypothetical illustration — not a real client.

Imagine a father in Manchester whose seven-year-old daughter flew to Fortaleza with her Brazilian mother for a three-week August holiday, agreed by email, with a return ticket for the 24th. On the 22nd the mother writes that she has enrolled the girl in a local school and will not be returning. The father, who shares parental responsibility under English law and has never been the subject of any order limiting it, writes back the same day, calmly, that he does not agree to his daughter remaining in Brazil and expects her return on the 24th as planned. He saves the thread and the ticket.

Over the next two days he assembles the school letters, the GP records, the tenancy, and photographs from the past year; contacts the English Central Authority; and has a first call with a lawyer in Brazil. The application reaches ACAF within the fortnight. ACAF locates the child through the school, proposes a voluntary return, and, when the mother declines, the AGU files the return action before the Justiça Federal in Ceará. The father takes part in the conciliation hearing by video, sees his daughter on weekly video calls ordered by the judge, and, during the case, agrees a visit in Fortaleza under an arrangement both lawyers sign.

Every distinguishing detail here is invented. Real situations turn on their own facts, dates, and documents, and require individual analysis. Nothing in this example predicts any outcome.

What are the most common mistakes?

• Writing anything that sounds like agreement. “Stay until Christmas and we’ll sort it out” is an article 13(a) exhibit. Be kind and be clear at the same time.
• Waiting for the other parent to come round. Every week is a week closer to the article 12 line and a week of settlement evidence for the other side.
• Flying to Brazil to take the child back. It creates a second removal, possible criminal exposure, and a narrative that you are the unsafe parent.
• Filing a custody case in Brazil. Article 16 reserves the merits for the home court, and Resolução CNJ 449/2022 has the state custody case stayed while the federal court decides return; a Brazilian custody filing gains you nothing and can undermine your own return application.
• Treating the criminal complaint as the main road. It can help with location; it can also block a voluntary return and hand the other side an argument.
• Withdrawing the child from school or giving up the home. These are the documents that prove habitual residence; keep the child’s life where it was.
• Waiting for perfect documents. Central Authorities open files on copies. Apostilles and translations follow.
• Arguing the case in the family group chat. Everything you write may be read by a judge. Say less, and say it in writing to the right people.
• Assuming the AGU is your lawyer. It represents Brazil’s treaty obligation. Your own counsel represents you.

The first 72 hours at a glance

Question	Answer	Where
Is it a Hague case?	Under 16, habitual residence in a contracting state, custody rights actually exercised, removal or retention breached them	Convention arts. 3–5; Decreto 3.413/2000
Where to file	Your Central Authority, ACAF directly, or (rarely) a Brazilian court directly	Arts. 6–9, 29
Cost of the machinery	Central Authorities and the AGU action: no charge (Brazil made no art. 26 reservation); own counsel and logistics: private	Arts. 25–26
Brazil’s only reservation	To art. 24: foreign documents in the court record need a sworn Portuguese translation	Decreto 3.413/2000, art. 1; Convention art. 42
Who litigates in Brazil	AGU before the Justiça Federal; you are an interessada and may intervene as assistant	CF arts. 109, 131; Res. CNJ 449/2022, art. 8º
What the court decides	Return, not custody; a state custody case is stayed meanwhile	Arts. 16, 19; Res. CNJ 449/2022, art. 22
Benchmark timing	Six weeks in the Convention; a domestic calendar of 15/30-day steps; months in practice	Art. 11; Res. CNJ 449/2022, arts. 10–19
Defences	No custody right or no exercise, consent/acquiescence, grave risk, objection of a child over twelve, settlement after one year, fundamental principles	Arts. 12, 13, 20; Res. CNJ 449/2022, art. 12
Grave risk and domestic violence	Art. 13(1)(b) read with the child’s best interests and a gender perspective; applies on objective, concrete indications of domestic violence even if the child is not the direct victim	STF, ADI 4245 and ADI 7686, 27/08/2025
Contact meanwhile	Interim access through ACAF or the court	Art. 21
Not a Hague case	STJ recognition of a foreign order, or a Brazilian custody action; Inter-American Convention where applicable	CF art. 105, I, “i”; CPC arts. 960–965; Decreto 1.212/1994

Key terms

• Habitual residence — the factual centre of the child’s life before the removal; the state whose courts decide custody.
• Wrongful removal / wrongful retention — taking the child across the border, or keeping the child after an agreed visit, in breach of custody rights.
• Central Authority — the body each contracting state designates to receive and transmit applications; in Brazil, ACAF.
• ACAF — Autoridade Central Administrativa Federal, within the Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública.
• AGU — Advocacia-Geral da União, which brings the return action before the federal courts.
• Article 13(b) — the grave-risk exception.

Key takeaways

• First, check the four elements: under 16, habitual residence in a contracting state, custody rights, actual exercise. Brazil is bound through Decreto 3.413/2000.
• A return application is not a custody case. It sends the child home so the home court can decide custody; article 16 keeps the Brazilian court off the merits.
• File through a Central Authority in the first days, yours or ACAF, without waiting for apostilles. It is free, and the date ACAF receives the request is the date Brazilian rules use to decide whether the “settled child” defence is even admissible.
• Write your timeline and preserve every message on day one; say clearly, once, that you do not consent to the child staying.
• Do not self-help, do not threaten, do not file for custody in Brazil, and treat criminal complaints as a decision, not a reflex.
• In Brazil the AGU litigates before the Justiça Federal, and you are a recognised interessada entitled to intervene as an assistant (Res. CNJ 449/2022, art. 8º); your own counsel follows the case, proposes measures, and keeps you present.
• Expect months, not six weeks, and use interim contact under article 21 to stay in the child’s life while the case runs.
• Where domestic violence is credibly indicated, the STF’s 2025 decision in ADI 4245 and ADI 7686 means the grave-risk exception is engaged even if the child is not the direct victim — a reality both parents should understand before the first filing.
• If it is not a Hague case, the routes are STJ recognition of a foreign order or a Brazilian custody action, both decided on the child’s best interests.

Related guides on this site

• International child abduction and the Hague Convention in Brazil
• Custody orders across borders: relocation, mirror orders, and travel authorisations for children leaving Brazil
• Parental alienation claims in cross-border custody cases in Brazil
• Child custody in Brazil for foreign parents
• Child custody in international marriages in Brazil
• International divorce in Brazil: a complete guide
• Apostille and document validation for Brazil

How ZS Advogados can help

A return case is won or lost on sequence and on paper: whether the four elements were documented before the other side reframed them, whether the application reached a Central Authority early, whether nothing you wrote in the first days reads as consent, and whether the Brazilian proceeding was followed by someone who could respond in time to each allegation and each request from the court.

Our team works with left-behind parents from the first conversation: assessing the Convention elements against your facts, preparing or reviewing the application to ACAF, coordinating with counsel and the Central Authority in your country, representing you under a power of attorney while the AGU’s action runs before the Justiça Federal, seeking interim contact, and, where the family can reach an agreement, structuring a voluntary return that holds. We work in English and Portuguese and respond the same business day. The practical details, including how to reach an attorney, are on our cross-border family law page, or by telephone at +55 (18) 3908-1653.

• Family law — custody, contact, and the return proceeding itself
• International law — Central Authority coordination, foreign documents, recognition of foreign orders

Book a consultation to have the four Convention elements and your first-week plan reviewed before anything is filed.

Technical review by the ZS Advogados Associados team, including co-founding partner Karina Peres Silvério (OAB/SP 331.050) and founding partner Zachariah Zagol (OAB/SP 351.356). Contact: contato@zsassociados.com — Presidente Prudente, SP.

Sources and legal basis

• LINDB — Decreto-Lei nº 4.657/1942 (art. 18: atos notariais e de registro civil praticados por autoridades consulares brasileiras para brasileiros no exterior)
• Decreto nº 3.413/2000 — promulgates the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Planalto)
• HCCH — 1980 Child Abduction Convention: text, status table, and Central Authorities
• Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública — Subtração internacional de crianças (ACAF) — the Central Authority’s own page, with its current address, telephone, and the subtracao.acaf@mj.gov.br mailbox
• Advocacia-Geral da União (gov.br)
• Resolução CNJ nº 449, de 30 de março de 2022 — procedure for actions founded on the 1980 Hague Convention (CNJ)
• STF — ADI 4245 and ADI 7686, judged 27 August 2025: the Convention’s constitutionality and the reading of art. 13(1)(b) (STF)
• Constituição Federal — arts. 105, I, “i”, 109, III, and 131 (Planalto)
• Lei nº 13.105/2015 — Código de Processo Civil (arts. 21–25, 104–105, 294–311, 960–965) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 8.069/1990 — Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (Planalto)
• Decreto nº 1.212/1994 — Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children (Planalto)
• Decreto-Lei nº 2.848/1940 — Código Penal, art. 249 (Planalto)
• Decreto Legislativo nº 79/1999 and Decreto nº 3.413/2000 — Brazil’s accession, in force for Brazil since 1 January 2000, with the reservation to art. 24 (Planalto)

---

This guide is for informational and educational purposes only, in line with Provimento No. 205/2021 of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB). It is not legal advice, an opinion, or an offer of services, does not refer to any specific case, and does not guarantee any result. It describes Brazilian law and practice; references to the law and authorities of other countries are factual context only. Hague Convention cases turn on their own facts and on the evidence available in each proceeding; timelines and outcomes vary and cannot be predicted. Rules and provisions are cited as of August 2026; changes after that date are not reflected. Each situation requires individual analysis by a licensed attorney. Last updated August 2026.