Child Support When the Paying Parent Is in Brazil: Routes From Abroad

The first sign is often silence. Payments that used to arrive on the first of the month stop, and then a relative lets slip that the other parent has “gone back to Brazil” — or moved there for a job, a new partner, a fresh start. You are in Miami, or Lisbon, or Manchester, with a child and a support order that suddenly seems to describe a person who no longer exists in your legal system.

The agency that used to garnish the wages will usually tell you “we cannot reach him there.” That is true — and not the end of the story. The parent did not escape the obligation by crossing a border. What changed is the place where it can be enforced. It is now Brazil, and Brazil takes child support seriously enough that it is one of the very few debts for which a person can be jailed.

The thing this guide turns on is which route gets you into the Brazilian system. There are three: a treaty application under the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention, an application under the older 1956 New York Convention, or a direct action in a Brazilian court through Brazilian counsel. They lead to the same enforcement tools but differ enormously in speed, cost, control, and paperwork.

This is educational content prepared by the ZS Advogados Associados team for parents living outside Brazil — foreign nationals and Brazilians abroad alike — whose child’s other parent now lives in Brazil. It covers Brazilian jurisdiction, the treaty channels, what happens to a foreign support order, the enforcement measures available in Brazil, the informal-income debtor, and what a parent abroad must prepare. It builds on our general guide to child support calculation and enforcement in Brazil, which explains how amounts are fixed and is the place to start if the question is how much, and on our guides to international divorce in Brazil and child custody in international marriages. The service page on child support enforcement in Brazil sets out how we handle these matters, and the Portuguese version of this guide is pensão alimentícia com o pai ou a mãe no exterior.

Can a Brazilian court hear a support claim when the child lives abroad?

Yes — and this is the foundation on which every route rests. The Código de Processo Civil (CPC/2015, Lei 13.105/2015) defines when Brazilian courts have jurisdiction over a dispute with a foreign element, and two provisions matter here.

Article 21, I gives Brazilian courts jurisdiction whenever the defendant is domiciled in Brazil, whatever the defendant’s nationality. Article 22, I adds a rule specific to support: Brazilian courts also have jurisdiction when the creditor is domiciled or resident in Brazil (alínea a) or when the defendant maintains ties in Brazil, such as ownership or possession of assets, receipt of income, or economic benefits — precisely the situation of a parent working or holding property in Brazil, even if their formal domicile is contested.

This jurisdiction is concurrent, not exclusive (CPC art. 24). A pending or concluded case at home does not prevent a Brazilian court from hearing a claim, and vice versa. The parent abroad often has two live forums; because the debtor’s salary, accounts, and assets are in Brazil, the Brazilian forum is where enforcement actually bites.

Within Brazil, the ordinary venue for support actions is the creditor’s domicile (CPC art. 53, II). When the creditor lives abroad, the case is filed where the defendant is domiciled (CPC art. 46) or, under the treaty routes below, in the federal court of the debtor’s residence.

Legal basis: jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled in Brazil is art. 21, I, of the Código de Processo Civil (Lei nº 13.105/2015); jurisdiction over support claims where the defendant holds assets, income, or economic benefits in Brazil is art. 22, I, “b” (support jurisdiction where the creditor is domiciled or resident in Brazil is art. 22, I, “a”); concurrent jurisdiction and the absence of international lis pendens are arts. 24 and 21–22 read together; venue is arts. 46 and 53, II.

Which of the three routes applies to you?

The right route depends on where you live and on what you already have. The table below is the map; the sections that follow walk each road.

Route	When available	Who moves the file	Cost abroad	Strengths / weaknesses
2007 Hague Child Support Convention	Both countries are Contracting States (Brazil since 1 Nov 2017; US, EU states, UK, Canada, Australia among parties)	Your central authority → Brazil’s Ministry of Justice (DRCI) → public legal assistance → court	Free legal assistance for child-support applications	No lawyer to hire; standardized forms; locating the debtor / multi-agency queue, little strategic control
1956 New York Convention	Your country is a party but not to Hague 2007, or the file predates 2017	Transmitting agency → Procuradoria-Geral da República → federal court of debtor’s residence	Largely free through public bodies	Only treaty door for some countries / older, slower, less standardized
Direct action in Brazil	Always	You, through Brazilian counsel under a power of attorney	Counsel’s fees, agreed individually	Speed, provisional support at the outset, asset investigation from day one / requires counsel and apostilled documents

The routes are not mutually exclusive. A parent may lodge a Hague application to locate the debtor while retained counsel files for provisional support in the Brazilian court. What cannot sensibly be done is running two full proceedings for the same arrears in the same country.

Speak to counsel — the treaty map changes. The list of Contracting States to the 2007 Convention and the extent of each country’s ratification (including sub-national units in federal countries) is maintained by the Hague Conference and updates regularly. Confirm your country’s status on the official status table before choosing a route.

How does the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention work from your side?

The Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance is the modern instrument. Brazil ratified it and the accompanying Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, promulgating both by Decreto 9.176/2017; the Convention entered into force for Brazil on 1 November 2017. Brazil’s central authority is the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, acting through the DRCI (Departamento de Recuperação de Ativos e Cooperação Jurídica Internacional) of the National Justice Secretariat.

What you can ask for. Article 10 of the Convention lists the applications a creditor may make through the central-authority channel: recognition and enforcement of an existing support decision; enforcement of a decision already recognized in Brazil; establishment of a new decision where none exists (including, where necessary, establishment of parentage); and modification of an existing decision. There is also a set of specific measures under article 7 — help locating the debtor, obtaining information on income and assets, facilitating service — which can be requested even without a full application.

How the file moves. You approach your own country’s central authority (in the United States, the state child-support agency under the federal child-support program; in EU states, the designated ministry or agency; in the UK, the REMO unit). It checks the file, arranges translation into Portuguese, and transmits it to the DRCI, which registers it and forwards it to the body providing legal assistance in Brazil, which files the case in the competent court. Under article 15, §1º, the requested State — Brazil — must provide free legal assistance for any maintenance application made by a creditor through this channel for a person under 21 arising from a parent-child relationship, so the parent abroad does not pay for counsel on this route. “Legal assistance” is defined broadly in the Convention (art. 3, “c”) to include advice, presentation of the case, representation, and exemption from costs. Outside recognition and enforcement applications, §2º allows the requested State to refuse assistance for an application it considers manifestly unfounded on the merits.

Which law governs — and why it is usually Brazilian law anyway. Brazil promulgated, in the same Decreto 9.176/2017, the 2007 Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations. Its general rule (art. 3) is the law of the creditor’s habitual residence — the country where the child lives. But the Protocol carries an exception that fits this guide’s exact situation: under art. 4(3), where the creditor brings the claim before the authority of the State in which the debtor has their habitual residence, the law of the forum applies — reverting to the creditor’s-residence law only if the forum’s law gives no support at all (art. 4(2)). A parent abroad who claims against a parent living in Brazil is, by that rule, ordinarily met with Brazilian substantive law, applied by a Brazilian judge. That is the design of the Protocol, not a departure from it. How consistently first-instance Brazilian courts reason through the Protocol’s structure is not something published case law lets anyone measure, so treat the applicable-law question as one for counsel to raise expressly in the pleadings rather than assume.

Legal basis: the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention and the 2007 Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations were promulgated by Decreto nº 9.176, de 19 de outubro de 2017, with reservations to art. 20, §1º, “e”, and art. 30, §1º, of the Convention; it entered into force for Brazil on 1 November 2017. The central authority is the Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública, through the DRCI/SNJ (Convention art. 4). The catalogue of applications is art. 10 (six for the creditor, three for the debtor), specific measures art. 7, and free legal assistance art. 15, §1º. Procedure for recognition and enforcement is governed by the law of the requested State (art. 23, §1º), and review of the merits is prohibited (art. 28). The Protocol’s general connecting factor is the creditor’s habitual residence (art. 3), with the forum’s own law applying where the creditor sues in the State of the debtor’s habitual residence (art. 4(3)). Recognition of foreign judgments in Brazil is assigned to the STJ by art. 105, I, “i”, of the Constitution and governed by CPC arts. 960–965.

How does the 1956 New York Convention route still work?

Before Hague 2007, the workhorse was the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, signed in New York on 20 June 1956 and promulgated in Brazil by Decreto 56.826/1965. It remains relevant for creditors in countries that never joined the Hague Convention, and for files opened before November 2017.

Under this Convention, each country designates a transmitting agency and a receiving agency. In Brazil, the receiving (intermediary) institution is the Procuradoria-Geral da República (PGR), the head office of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office. Lei 5.478/1968, article 26, fixes the mechanics in terms worth quoting: jurisdiction over support actions arising from the Convention lies with “the federal court of the capital of the Brazilian federative unit in which the debtor resides”, and “the Procuradoria-Geral da República” is “considered the intermediary institution” for the purposes of the decrees. Note that the connecting factor in the statute is the debtor’s residence, not domicile. On receipt of a request from abroad, the PGR forwards it to the federal prosecutor’s office nearest the debtor’s domicile, which files the action before the competent federal court.

The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office sets out what then happens to a foreign order on this route: the request is registered as an international-cooperation proceeding, an HDE — homologação de decisão estrangeira — is filed before the STJ, and once the decision is homologated a carta de sentença is sent to the federal prosecutor’s office so that enforcement can be opened before the competent federal court. Practically, the New York route is slower and less standardized than the Hague channel, with no equivalent of the Hague “specific measures” catalogue. But it still gets a foreign parent into a Brazilian federal court without hiring a lawyer, and for some countries it is the only treaty door. The Brazilian authorities’ own rule of thumb: the applicable instrument is determined by the country of residence of the party against whom the request is made and the treaties that country shares with Brazil.

Legal basis: the 1956 New York Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance was promulgated by Decreto nº 56.826, de 2 de setembro de 1965; the Brazilian intermediary institution and the federal-court venue at the capital of the federative unit where the debtor resides are art. 26 da Lei nº 5.478/1968 (Lei de Alimentos). The 2007 Convention does not repeal the 1956 Convention: art. 49 coordinates the two, and the MPF confirms the New York route remains the channel for requests involving States that have not joined the Hague instrument.

What is the direct route — filing in Brazil through counsel?

None of the treaties removes the parent’s right to act directly. A parent abroad can retain a Brazilian lawyer, grant a power of attorney (procuração), and have the lawyer file a support action or an enforcement proceeding in the state family court where the debtor is domiciled. This is the route families choose when they need speed, when the debtor is hiding income, or when they want a lawyer answerable to them rather than a public body working a queue.

Three features make it attractive. Provisional support from day one: the Lei de Alimentos (Lei 5.478/1968, art. 4º) directs that, on receiving the petition, the judge “shall fix provisional support at once, to be paid by the debtor, unless the creditor expressly declares that they do not need it” — before the defendant is heard. Treaty applications reach this stage only after crossing two central authorities. Investigation from the start: counsel can ask the court to search bank balances (Sisbajud), vehicles (Renajud), real estate, and employment records as the very first measures. Strategic control: imprisonment or seizure first, installment plan or lump-sum settlement — the creditor’s decisions, made with counsel, not defaults produced by a form.

The cost is that the parent hires and pays counsel and must produce a properly executed power of attorney. Fees are not addressed here; they are agreed individually, and the Convention channel exists precisely for families who cannot bear them.

Legal basis: provisional support at the outset of the action is art. 4º da Lei nº 5.478/1968; the special support procedure is arts. 1º–19 of the same law; representation by counsel under a power of attorney is CPC arts. 103–105.

What happens to the support order you already have?

A foreign support order is valuable evidence and, once recognized, an enforceable title in Brazil — but it does not enforce itself. Brazilian law offers two ways to make it operative.

Recognition (homologação) by the STJ. The Constitution reserves the recognition of foreign judgments to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (art. 105, I, “i”). The procedure is set out in CPC arts. 960–965 and in the STJ’s internal rules: under art. 963, the decision must have been given by a competent authority, be preceded by regular service (even where default was lawfully declared), be effective in the country where it was given, not offend a Brazilian res judicata, be accompanied by an official translation, and contain no manifest offence to public policy. Once homologated, it is enforced in the federal court as a Brazilian judicial title (CPC art. 965). Partial homologation is possible (art. 961, §2º).

The treaty channel does not bypass the STJ. This is the point most commonly misunderstood, so it is worth stating exactly. The 2007 Convention’s Chapter V sets the grounds, documents and standards for recognition and enforcement, and forbids review of the merits (art. 28) — but art. 23, §1º, provides that “the procedures for recognition and enforcement shall be governed by the law of the requested State”, and the Convention never names which Brazilian authority is competent. Brazilian law names it, at constitutional level. The CPC is drafted to leave room for a treaty to say otherwise — homologation is required “save a special provision to the contrary in a treaty” (art. 960, caput), and a foreign decision has effect in Brazil only after homologation “save a provision to the contrary in a statute or treaty” (art. 961, caput) — but the only express carve-out in that chapter is the consensual foreign divorce (art. 961, §5º), which does not extend to support. Brazil also declined the Convention’s alternative procedure in art. 24, which is the closest thing the instrument offers to a bypass: its ratification carries only reservations to art. 20, §1º, “e”, and to art. 30, §1º, plus a declaration extending scope.

The result is that the Convention channel routes the file to the STJ rather than around it. The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office describes the same architecture for the New York Convention route it runs: the request is registered, an HDE (homologação de decisão estrangeira) is filed before the STJ, and once homologated a carta de sentença is sent to the federal prosecutor’s office to open enforcement in the federal court. Transmission through a central authority does simplify the paperwork — it substitutes for consular formalities — but it does not replace the homologação.

Brazil’s two reservations matter in practice. Brazil reserved against art. 20, §1º, “e”, so a foreign order cannot be recognised in Brazil on the sole basis that the parties agreed in writing on that court’s jurisdiction. And Brazil reserved against art. 30, §1º, meaning a private or administrative maintenance arrangement — as opposed to a decision — does not travel into Brazil through the Convention as though it were a judgment. Families whose “order” is in fact a settlement or an agency-issued arrangement should have counsel check which of the two it is before choosing a route.

Why a new Brazilian action is sometimes preferable. Recognition takes time and requires a complete, apostilled, sworn-translated copy of the foreign file. If the foreign order is old, was issued by default against a debtor never served in a way Brazil accepts, or fixes an amount disconnected from the debtor’s actual means, counsel may advise a fresh support action in Brazil, using the foreign order as evidence of need. The paths can be combined: enforce arrears under the recognized order and fix future support in Brazil.

Amount and currency. A recognised foreign order keeps its amount, converted into reais for enforcement in Brazil. A new Brazilian order is fixed in reais, typically as a percentage of net earnings or a multiple of the minimum wage, and support instalments are adjusted by an official index (Código Civil art. 1.710). The cost of living where the child lives is a legitimate factor, but the judge’s reference point is the debtor’s means in Brazil. On denominating support in a foreign currency, the starting rule is Código Civil art. 318, which makes agreements to pay in gold or foreign currency void “except in the cases provided for in special legislation”. The special legislation today is Lei 14.286/2021 — which repealed Decreto-Lei 857/1969 — whose art. 13 lists the situations where foreign-currency stipulation is admitted, including, in inciso II, obligations whose creditor or debtor is a non-resident. Whether that exception covers a support order or a homologated support agreement for a child resident abroad is not a settled question, and payment into Brazil is made in reais in any event. Counsel should be asked before an order or agreement is drafted around a foreign currency.

Legal basis: recognition of foreign judgments is assigned to the STJ by art. 105, I, “i”, da Constituição Federal and regulated by CPC arts. 960–965 — requirements in art. 963, partial homologation in art. 961, §2º, provisional measures in art. 961, §3º, and enforcement of the recognised decision before the federal court in art. 965. Homologation is required “salvo disposição especial em sentido contrário prevista em tratado” (art. 960, caput) and the decision has effect “salvo disposição em sentido contrário de lei ou tratado” (art. 961, caput); the only express carve-out in the chapter is the consensual foreign divorce (art. 961, §5º), which does not extend to support orders. Under the 2007 Convention, procedure for recognition and enforcement follows the law of the requested State (art. 23, §1º), review of the merits is prohibited (art. 28), and Brazil made no declaration under the alternative procedure of art. 24.

What enforcement tools do Brazilian courts have once support is owed?

This is where Brazil is genuinely strong. The CPC/2015 dedicates arts. 528 to 533 to the enforcement of support, layered on the general execution rules.

Two routes, and the creditor chooses. Enforcement of a support judgment runs on one of two tracks. The coercive track of art. 528 can end in imprisonment but reaches only a narrow slice of the debt. The expropriation track — which the creditor may elect from the outset under art. 528, §8º, following the ordinary rules on enforcement for a sum of money (arts. 523 et seq.) — reaches the whole debt but, in the words of the statute, is a route in which “imprisonment of the debtor shall not be admissible”. Most cross-border files run both, in parallel and in separate proceedings.

The coercive route (art. 528). On the creditor’s request, the judge orders the debtor personally served to, within three days, pay the debt, prove payment, or justify the impossibility of paying. If none of the three happens, the judge orders the judgment protested (§1º) and may decree imprisonment for one to three months (§3º). Four qualifications, all statutory, decide how this actually works:

• The justification is read narrowly by the statute itself. Art. 528, §2º: “Only proof of a fact generating the absolute impossibility of paying will justify the default.” Unemployment on its own, without evidence that nothing at all could be paid, does not meet it.
• The imprisonment is a closed regime, served apart. Art. 528, §4º: it “shall be served in the closed regime, and the prisoner shall be kept separate from ordinary prisoners.” It is a civil coercive measure, not a criminal sentence.
• It does not clear the debt. Art. 528, §5º: serving it “does not relieve the debtor of paying the instalments that have fallen due and those falling due.” On payment, the judge suspends the imprisonment order (§6º).
• The constitutional basis is narrow. The Constitution permits no civil imprisonment for debt “save that of a person responsible for the voluntary and inexcusable default of a maintenance obligation” and that of the unfaithful depositary (art. 5º, LXVII). Because the Supreme Federal Court’s Súmula Vinculante 25 made imprisonment of the unfaithful depositary unlawful, support is in practice the only surviving case — and the constitutional words voluntary and inexcusable are the test a judge applies.

Which arrears qualify. Only the debt comprising up to the three instalments falling due before the enforcement was filed, plus those falling due in the course of the proceeding (art. 528, §7º, codifying STJ Súmula 309). Everything older is collected on the expropriation track.

Payroll deduction (art. 529). Where the debtor is a public servant, a member of the military, a company director or manager, or an employee under labour law, the creditor may ask the court to order the deduction of support from the payroll. The court then notifies the employer, on pain of the crime of disobedience, to deduct from the debtor’s first payment after the order (§1º). Arrears may be added in instalments, provided the total — arrears plus current support — does not exceed 50% of the debtor’s net earnings (§3º). For a parent abroad this is the most reliable mechanism, because it removes the debtor from the payment chain.

Expropriation route. Arrears outside the coercive slice are collected by attachment and sale — art. 530 refers to the seizure rules of arts. 831 et seq., and art. 528, §8º, lets the creditor take the ordinary route of arts. 523 et seq.: a 15-day payment order, then a 10% penalty and attachment of bank balances (Sisbajud), vehicles (Renajud), real estate, receivables, and company shares. Support debts enjoy priority over most other creditors and can reach a portion of salary ordinarily protected from attachment.

Credit and registry consequences. The court may order the debtor’s name registered with credit-protection bureaus (CPC art. 782, §§3º and 5º, expressly extended to support enforcement) and the judgment protested (art. 528, §1º) — closing access to credit cards, financing, and many contracts, a significant pressure point for a debtor who is employed and settled in Brazil.

Criminal referral (art. 532). Where the judge finds procrastinating conduct by the debtor, the judge must, where appropriate, notify the public prosecutor of indicia of the crime of abandono material (Código Penal, art. 244) — failure without just cause to pay judicially fixed support, punishable by detention of one to three years and a fine. That is a separate criminal proceeding, not part of the civil enforcement.

Atypical measures (art. 139, IV). Judges may adopt the measures necessary to secure compliance, and courts have in individual cases ordered the suspension of a debtor’s driver’s licence or the retention of a passport. In January 2026 the STJ’s Second Section fixed the criteria for these measures in a repetitive appeal (Tema 1.137, REsp 1.955.539 and REsp 1.955.574): they are subsidiary to the ordinary means, require concrete reasoning in the decision, must respect adversarial process, and must be proportionate and reasonable — including in how long they last. They are exceptional, not routine.

Measure	Article	Trigger	Effect on the debtor
3-day payment order + protest of the judgment	CPC 528, caput and §1º	Enforcement filed on the coercive track	Debt publicly protested
Civil imprisonment 1–3 months, closed regime	CPC 528, §§3º–4º; CF art. 5º, LXVII; STJ Súmula 309	Voluntary and inexcusable default; no payment, no proof, no accepted justification	Detention apart from ordinary prisoners; debt survives
Payroll deduction up to 50% of net earnings	CPC 529, §3º	Debtor is a public servant, military, company director/manager, or employee	Employer deducts and remits directly
Asset seizure (Sisbajud, Renajud, property)	CPC 528, §8º; 530; 523 et seq.; 831 et seq.	Arrears beyond the coercive slice	Attachment and sale; no imprisonment on this track
Credit-bureau registration	CPC 782, §§3º–5º	Court order at the creditor’s request	Loss of access to credit
Criminal referral — abandono material	CPC 532; CP art. 244	Procrastinating conduct	Separate criminal prosecution (detention 1–3 years and fine)
Atypical measures (passport, licence)	CPC 139, IV; STJ Tema 1.137	Subsidiary, reasoned, proportionate, time-limited	Personal restrictions

What Brazilian enforcement cannot do to a debtor who is outside Brazil

This is the limit parents abroad most need stated plainly, and it cuts both ways.

Every measure above is an act of Brazilian jurisdiction and operates inside Brazilian territory. An order of prisão civil is a coercive measure of Brazilian civil procedure; it can be executed against the debtor when the debtor is in Brazil, and it stands on the record if the debtor returns, but it is not a mechanism for bringing anyone back. Extradition is a criminal instrument: under Lei 13.445/2017, art. 82, extradition is not granted where the underlying fact is not a crime in both States (inciso II), where the penalty under Brazilian law is under two years (inciso IV), or — decisively for many families — where the person is a Brazilian by birth (inciso I). A civil support debt is therefore not a basis for extradition, and even the crime of abandono material is subject to those limits.

What does work against a debtor abroad is the mirror image of this guide: the debtor’s Brazilian assets, accounts, and income remain reachable by a Brazilian court, and the same treaty channels — Hague 2007 through the DRCI, or the 1956 New York Convention through the PGR — carry a Brazilian decision outward, to be recognised and enforced by the authorities of the country where the debtor now lives, under that country’s law. What happens there is governed by that country’s rules, on which Brazilian counsel does not advise.

Legal basis: enforcement of support is arts. 528–533 do CPC/2015 (three-day order and personal service, art. 528, caput; protest, §1º; absolute impossibility as the only justification, §2º; imprisonment of one to three months, §3º; closed regime and separation from ordinary prisoners, §4º; debt survives, §5º; suspension on payment, §6º; the three-instalment limit, §7º; the creditor’s option for the expropriation route without imprisonment, §8º); civil imprisonment for the voluntary and inexcusable default of a maintenance obligation is art. 5º, LXVII, da Constituição Federal, read with STF Súmula Vinculante 25 on the unfaithful depositary; the three-instalment rule is also STJ Súmula 309; payroll deduction and the 50% net-earnings ceiling are art. 529, caput and §3º; credit-bureau registration in support cases is CPC art. 782, §§3º e 5º; the crime of abandono material is art. 244 do Código Penal (Decreto-Lei nº 2.848/1940), penalty of detention of one to three years and a fine; criteria for atypical enforcement measures are CPC art. 139, IV, and STJ Tema 1.137 (REsp 1.955.539 and REsp 1.955.574, Segunda Seção, January 2026); limits on extradition are art. 82 da Lei nº 13.445/2017.

Speak to counsel — sequencing matters. An employed debtor responds to payroll deduction; a self-employed debtor with hidden income to the coercive route and credit restrictions; a debtor with property to seizure. The wrong opening move can cost months.

What if the parent in Brazil has no formal job or hides income?

This is the most common obstacle, and Brazilian law and practice have answers.

Fixing support without a payslip. Where the debtor is self-employed, a business owner, or informally employed, courts fix support as a fixed amount in reais or as a multiple of the minimum wage, based on the standard of living the debtor displays — housing, vehicles, travel, social-media evidence — rather than declared income. The Código Civil’s test (art. 1.694, §1) looks at the debtor’s possibilities, and courts consistently hold that a parent who can afford a lifestyle can afford support. Evidence a parent abroad can gather from a distance — photos, public posts, business registrations at the Junta Comercial, property records — is directly relevant.

Reaching the debtor’s company. Where the debtor operates through a company, courts can order disclosure of its accounts, attach distributions, and, in cases of abuse, disregard the corporate veil (Código Civil art. 50; CPC arts. 133–137).

Grandparents as subsidiary debtors. Under Código Civil art. 1.698, where the relative who owes support first cannot bear the whole burden, those next in degree are called to contribute in proportion to their means. STJ Súmula 596 states the limits precisely: the grandparents’ maintenance obligation “is complementary and subsidiary in nature, arising only in the case of total or partial impossibility of performance by the parents.” It is a real lever where the debtor has relocated to live near well-off parents — but it requires showing that the parent is genuinely unable, not merely unwilling, to pay, and the grandparents cannot be sued alongside the parent as though the obligation were joint.

The “I cannot pay” defense. In the imprisonment route, the debtor may justify the impossibility of payment (CPC art. 528, caput and §2). Courts read this narrowly: unemployment alone is not enough where the debtor made no effort to pay anything or to seek modification. A debtor who wants to pay less must file a modification action — the subject of our companion guide on revising or ending child support after moving abroad — rather than simply stop paying.

Legal basis: the need-ability-proportionality test is art. 1.694, §1º, do Código Civil (Lei nº 10.406/2002); subsidiary liability of grandparents is art. 1.698 do Código Civil and STJ Súmula 596; disregard of the corporate veil is art. 50 do Código Civil and CPC arts. 133–137; justification of impossibility in the coercive route is CPC art. 528, caput and §2º.

What does the parent abroad actually need to prepare?

The document file is where cross-border support cases are won or lost, because everything foreign must be made Brazilian before a judge can read it.

Proof of parentage. The child’s birth certificate naming the debtor. If the debtor is not named and denies paternity, the Brazilian action will include a paternity investigation, usually with a DNA test; refusal to submit generates a presumption of paternity “to be assessed together with the body of evidence” (Lei 8.560/1992, art. 2º-A, §1º), and a refusal of a court-ordered medical examination may supply the proof it was meant to obtain (Código Civil art. 232). It is a presumption weighed with the rest of the file, not an automatic result.

Proof of need. School fees, health insurance, medical and housing costs, and a monthly budget for the child, with sworn translation and a clear conversion into reais.

The existing foreign order and case file, if any, with proof of service on the debtor and of finality — the elements the STJ examines on recognition.

Formalities. Every foreign public document needs an apostille (Brazil is a party to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention, promulgated by Decreto 8.660/2016) — or consular legalization if the issuing country is not a party — and a sworn translation (tradução juramentada) into Portuguese by a translator enrolled in Brazil.

Power of attorney (direct route) — our power of attorney guide covers the drafting and legalisation steps. A procuração authorizing Brazilian counsel to file, receive service, request enforcement measures, and, if desired, negotiate and settle — signed abroad before a notary, apostilled, and translated. Powers to settle or receive payment must be expressly stated (CPC art. 105).

A way to receive money. Support ordered in Brazil is paid in reais into a Brazilian account. A parent abroad typically needs a CPF (non-residents can obtain one through consulates) and a Brazilian account, or an arrangement through counsel with periodic remittances under Banco Central foreign-exchange rules. Our guide on transferring money between Brazil and abroad covers the mechanics.

Presence. Support cases are document-driven and hearings are frequently held by videoconference (CPC art. 236, §3º). A parent abroad rarely needs to travel; counsel should confirm for any hearing requiring personal testimony.

Legal basis: apostille of foreign public documents is the 1961 Hague Convention, promulgated by Decreto nº 8.660/2016; sworn translation requirements derive from art. 192 do CPC and art. 224 do Código Civil; the presumption of paternity on refusal of DNA testing is art. 2º-A, §1º, da Lei nº 8.560/1992 and art. 232 do Código Civil; powers of attorney and special powers are CPC arts. 104–105; videoconference acts are CPC art. 236, §3º.

How long do you have — and how far back can you go?

The right to support itself is imprescriptible: a child can always claim it while the need persists. But individual installments prescribe in two years (Código Civil art. 206, §2º), and an installment that fell due more than two years before enforcement is filed is, in principle, no longer collectible. Two qualifications favor the creditor: prescription does not run against a child under sixteen (Código Civil art. 198, I), and where the order was issued abroad, the arrears calendar depends on when it became enforceable in Brazil — a point counsel should map before filing.

Support retroacts to service. Under Lei 5.478/1968, art. 13, §2º, support fixed in a Brazilian action is owed from the date the defendant is served — another argument for not waiting.

Legal basis: two-year prescription of support installments is art. 206, §2º, do Código Civil; suspension of prescription against absolutely incapable persons is art. 198, I, do Código Civil (read with art. 3º); retroaction of support to service is art. 13, §2º, da Lei nº 5.478/1968.

Hypothetical illustration — not a real client. A mother in Toronto holds a 2022 Ontario support order for two children against their father, who moved to Florianópolis in 2024 for a job with a Brazilian employer and stopped paying in 2025. Both countries are Hague 2007 Contracting States, so she files a recognition-and-enforcement application through Ontario’s central authority, which reaches the DRCI with the order, proof of service, and financial forms in Portuguese. In parallel, she grants a power of attorney to Brazilian counsel, who identifies the employer and seeks payroll deduction under CPC art. 529 once the order is given effect, while enforcing the last three installments through the art. 528 coercive route. Every distinguishing detail here is invented — the countries, the dates, and the sequence. Nothing in this example predicts any outcome.

What are the most common mistakes?

• Assuming the home-country agency will “reach” the parent in Brazil. Garnishment orders stop at the border; the agency transmits a treaty application, it does not enforce abroad.
• Sending a foreign order without apostille, translation, or proof of service. Files bounce for months over formalities.
• Choosing the treaty route when speed is essential, or the direct route when no resources exist. The routes suit different families; some run both.
• Enforcing only the last three installments. The coercive route covers three installments plus accruals; the rest needs a separate seizure track.
• Letting installments age past two years. Prescription is real, subject to the under-sixteen suspension.
• Not investigating the debtor’s assets before filing. Bank, vehicle, property, and company searches shape the opening move.
• Accepting informal payments without records. Cash sent through relatives cannot be proven or offset; use traceable transfers.

At a glance

Question	Short answer
Can a Brazilian court hear my claim?	Yes — defendant domiciled in Brazil (CPC art. 21, I) or with assets/income there (art. 22, I, b)
Which route?	Hague 2007 if both countries are parties; New York 1956 if only that applies; direct action always
Who runs the treaty file in Brazil?	Hague: Ministry of Justice — DRCI. New York: PGR, federal court of debtor’s residence
Is my foreign order valid in Brazil?	Only after homologation by the STJ (CPC arts. 960–965) — the treaty channel routes the file there, it does not bypass it
What can Brazil do to the debtor?	Civil imprisonment 1–3 months, payroll deduction up to 50% of net, seizure, credit restrictions, criminal referral
Do I need to travel?	Usually not — power of attorney, apostille, sworn translation, videoconference
How far back?	Installments prescribe in 2 years; no prescription against a child under 16

Key terms

• Alimentos — support/maintenance, including child support.
• Autoridade central — the body that transmits and receives treaty applications (DRCI for Hague 2007; PGR for New York 1956).
• Homologação de sentença estrangeira / HDE — recognition of a foreign decision by the STJ, without which it has no effect in Brazil.
• Prisão civil — civil imprisonment, the coercive measure for unpaid support.
• Desconto em folha — payroll deduction of support at source.
• Sisbajud / Renajud — court systems for attaching bank balances and vehicles.
• Procuração — power of attorney.

Key takeaways

• The obligation did not cross the border; the forum did. Enforcement happens in Brazil, under Brazilian procedure.
• Three routes: Hague 2007 (Decreto 9.176/2017), New York 1956 (Decreto 56.826/1965), or direct action through Brazilian counsel — often combined.
• Brazilian jurisdiction is secure when the debtor is domiciled in Brazil or holds assets or income there (CPC arts. 21, I, and 22, I, b).
• A foreign order becomes enforceable only after homologation by the STJ (CPC arts. 960–965); the Hague channel sets the standards and simplifies the paperwork but does not replace the STJ, and Brazil declined the Convention’s alternative procedure (art. 24). A fresh Brazilian action is sometimes faster.
• Brazil’s tools are strong: civil imprisonment for the last three installments (CPC art. 528; Súmula 309), payroll deduction up to 50% of net (art. 529), seizure, credit restrictions, criminal referral.
• Informal-income debtors are reachable through lifestyle evidence, corporate disclosure, and subsidiary grandparent liability (CC art. 1.698).
• Do not wait: installments prescribe in two years, and support runs only from service.

Related guides on this site

• Child support in Brazil: calculation and enforcement
• Revising or ending child support after moving abroad
• International divorce in Brazil: jurisdiction and assets
• Child custody in international marriages in Brazil
• International child abduction and the Hague Convention
• Apostille and Hague document validation for Brazil
• International money transfers to and from Brazil

How ZS Advogados can help

A support claim against a parent in Brazil is a logistics problem layered on a legal one: the right route must be chosen for the family’s country and resources; foreign documents must be made Brazilian before any judge reads them; the debtor’s employer, accounts, and assets must be identified before the first filing; and enforcement must be sequenced to fit the debtor’s profile. Distance turns each small error into months of delay.

Our team represents parents abroad across that arc — assessing the treaty and direct routes, preparing the document file, recognizing foreign orders before the STJ, filing support and enforcement actions, running asset searches, and coordinating with home-country central authorities and counsel. We work in English and Portuguese. Read more about our cross-border family law practice.

• Family law — support, enforcement, custody, and the interaction with Brazilian family courts
• International law — treaty applications, recognition of foreign judgments, cross-border documents, and remote representation
• Civil litigation — enforcement, asset searches, and coercive measures before Brazilian courts
• Child support enforcement in Brazil — the service page for treaty applications, recognition, and enforcement
• Cross-border custody — where support and custody questions run together

Book a consultation to have the route, the documents, and the enforcement strategy reviewed before you file.

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 — +55 (18) 3908-1653 — Presidente Prudente, SP.

Sources and legal basis

• Decreto nº 9.176/2017 — promulgates the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention and the 2007 Protocol on applicable law (Planalto)
• Decreto nº 56.826/1965 — promulgates the 1956 New York Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (Câmara dos Deputados)
• Lei nº 5.478/1968 — Lei de Alimentos (arts. 4º, 13, 26) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 13.105/2015 — Código de Processo Civil (arts. 21–24, 46, 53, 139, 528–533, 782, 960–965) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 10.406/2002 — Código Civil (arts. 198, 206, 1.694–1.710) (Planalto)
• Constituição Federal — arts. 5º, LXVII, and 105, I, “i” (Planalto)
• Decreto-Lei nº 2.848/1940 — Código Penal, art. 244 (Planalto)
• Lei nº 8.560/1992 — paternity investigation (Planalto)
• Decreto nº 8.660/2016 — promulgates the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention (Planalto)
• Ministério da Justiça — Convenção da Haia sobre Alimentos (central authority: DRCI) (gov.br)
• Ministério Público Federal — Alimentos internacionais (New York Convention; PGR as intermediary) (mpf.mp.br)
• HCCH — 2007 Child Support Convention: status table of Contracting States (hcch.net)
• HCCH — Brazil: reservations and declarations under the 2007 Convention (hcch.net)
• Lei nº 14.286/2021 — foreign-exchange market; art. 13 on foreign-currency stipulation; repeals Decreto-Lei 857/1969 (Planalto)
• Lei nº 13.445/2017 — Lei de Migração, art. 82 on limits to extradition (Planalto)
• STJ — Second Section fixes criteria for atypical enforcement measures, Tema 1.137 (January 2026) (stj.jus.br)

---

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 foreign child-support agencies, foreign orders, and foreign procedure are factual context only and not advice on any foreign law. Treaty membership, central-authority practice, and court procedure change; rules and provisions are cited as of August 2026, and changes after that date are not reflected. Each situation requires individual analysis by a licensed attorney. Last updated August 2026.