Custody Orders Across Borders: Relocation, Mirror Orders, Travel

Most families discover the problem at an airport or a courthouse. A mother in Florida holds a parenting order from a Miami judge and learns that a Brazilian federal police officer at Guarulhos has no reason to read it. A father in Curitiba holds a Brazilian joint-custody order and learns that a school in Lisbon is not bound by it. A couple who agreed, in good faith and in writing, that the children would spend Christmas in Recife discovers that their agreement is enforceable in one country and a piece of paper in the other.

None of this means that custody orders are worthless across borders. It means they do not travel by themselves. Each country decides, under its own rules, which foreign orders it will act on, and each has its own checkpoints for a child leaving its territory. The work of cross-border custody is the work of making an order exist, in usable form, on both sides of the border before the day it is needed.

The thing this guide turns on is a short sentence: Brazilian authorities act on Brazilian titles. A foreign custody order becomes usable in Brazil through recognition by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça; a child leaves Brazil on the strength of a Brazilian statutory authorisation, not a foreign one; and an agreement between parents in two countries becomes enforceable in Brazil when a Brazilian court has approved it. Once that is clear, relocation, mirror orders, and travel authorisations stop being mysterious and become a checklist.

This is educational content prepared by the ZS Advogados Associados team for parents, and for the foreign lawyers who advise them, in binational families split between Brazil and another country. Our service page on cross-border custody and the Hague Convention in Brazil covers the same ground from the representation side. It builds on our guides to child custody in Brazil for foreign parents, joint custody in Brazil, and international child abduction and the Hague Convention, and it sits alongside our guide to the first 72 hours for a left-behind parent, which addresses what happens when the checkpoints in this guide have already failed.

Does a foreign custody order work in Brazil on its own?

No. Under article 105, I, “i”, of the Constitution, foreign judgments are recognised in Brazil by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), and a custody or parenting order is a foreign judgment like any other. Until the STJ has homologated it, the order does not produce effects before Brazilian courts, registries, schools, or the Polícia Federal.

The recognition procedure (homologação de sentença estrangeira) is set out in arts. 960–965 of the Código de Processo Civil (Lei 13.105/2015) and in the STJ’s internal rules. The court checks that the foreign court had jurisdiction, that the other party was properly served, that the decision is final and effective in its country of origin, that it is accompanied by a sworn translation and has been authenticated (in practice, apostilled), and that it does not offend Brazilian public order, sovereignty, or human dignity. It does not re-examine the merits: the STJ is not asking whether the Miami judge was right, only whether the order can be given effect here. Contested recognitions, where the other parent argues one of these points, take longer than consensual ones.

Two features matter for families.

Urgent foreign measures can be enforced before the merits are decided. Article 962 of the CPC allows a foreign decision granting an urgent measure, such as a prohibition on removing the child from a jurisdiction, to be executed in Brazil through a letter rogatory (carta rogatória), with the Brazilian authority examining only the formal conditions, not the substance. This is the route when speed is the point.

Some foreign decisions need no recognition at all, but custody is not one of them. Article 961, §5º, of the CPC exempts a consensual foreign divorce from homologation. Orders about children, maintenance, and property remain subject to recognition. Families sometimes assume that because their divorce needed no STJ step, the custody terms attached to it are also self-executing in Brazil. They are not.

Brazil is also not a party to the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, the instrument that gives near-automatic recognition to custody measures among its members. Brazil does not appear on the HCCH status table for that Convention, which is worth checking at the date it matters to you, because accessions happen. That absence explains why the STJ route, or a fresh Brazilian order, is the road for most foreign orders arriving here.

Legal basis: Constituição Federal, art. 105, I, “i”; Código de Processo Civil (Lei nº 13.105/2015), arts. 960–965, including art. 961, §5º (consensual divorce) and art. 962 (urgent measures by letter rogatory); Regimento Interno do STJ, as amended by Emenda Regimental nº 18/2014, on the recognition procedure.

Speak to counsel — recognition is a sequencing decision. Whether to homologate a foreign order, to seek a fresh Brazilian order on the same terms, or to do both depends on whether the other parent will contest, how urgent the need is, and what the order will be used for. Choosing the wrong door costs months.

Who decides custody when the parents live in different countries?

Brazilian courts have jurisdiction in civil matters when the defendant is domiciled in Brazil, when the obligation is to be performed here, or when the claim arises from facts occurring here (CPC, art. 21), and in family cases the practical rule is child-centred: STJ Súmula 383 places jurisdiction over matters concerning a child, in principle, in the forum of the domicile of the person holding custody. Where a child lives in Brazil with one parent, a Brazilian family court will normally accept a custody case; where the child lives abroad, a Brazilian court will usually decline to decide custody on the merits, or its decision will not be recognised where the child actually is.

The substantive rules that court applies are the Código Civil, arts. 1.583–1.590, as reshaped by Lei 13.058/2014: joint custody (guarda compartilhada) is the default whenever both parents are fit and want to exercise it (art. 1.584, §2º); under joint custody the time with each parent is balanced as far as the child’s interests allow (art. 1.583, §2º); and the court may fix the city that serves as the child’s base of residence (art. 1.583, §3º), a provision with obvious weight in relocation disputes. Lei 14.713/2023 added an important exception: joint custody is not applied when there is evidence of a risk of domestic or family violence (art. 1.584, §2º, as amended). Above all of this sits the best interests of the child, which the Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (Lei 8.069/1990) makes the governing standard, and the child’s right to family contact (convivência familiar).

Two rules aim specifically at parents who move to pick their court. Article 8 of Lei 12.318/2010 (the parental alienation statute) provides that a unilateral change of the child’s domicile is irrelevant for jurisdiction in cases founded on the right to family contact, unless the change resulted from the parents’ agreement or a court decision. And, internationally, the 1980 Hague Convention’s article 16 keeps the courts of the country to which a child has been wrongfully taken from deciding custody on the merits while a return application is pending.

Legal basis: CPC/2015, arts. 21–25; STJ Súmula nº 383; Código Civil (Lei nº 10.406/2002), arts. 1.583–1.590, as amended by Lei nº 13.058/2014 and Lei nº 14.713/2023; ECA (Lei nº 8.069/1990), arts. 3º–4º and 147; Lei nº 12.318/2010, art. 8º; 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto nº 3.413/2000), art. 16.

Can a parent relocate abroad with the child?

This is the question that ends more co-parenting arrangements than any other, and Brazilian law answers it with a principle rather than a formula: a relocation abroad is a decision about the child’s life, and under joint custody decisions about the child’s life belong to both parents, or, when they cannot agree, to the court.

In practice a parent who wishes to move abroad with the child has two lawful routes. Agreement with the other parent, recorded in a way that will hold, ideally approved by a family court so that it becomes a Brazilian title, with new contact arrangements (holidays, video calls, who pays for travel) written down. Or a court authorisation, in a proceeding where the judge weighs the reasons for the move, the plan for the child’s schooling and care, the effect on the other parent’s contact and how it will be preserved, the child’s own ties and, if old enough, views, and the stability of the arrangement. Brazilian judges neither presume that the custodial parent may move nor presume that the child must stay; they decide on the file. A parent who can show a serious, well-documented plan, generous and realistic contact for the other parent, and a willingness to have the arrangement mirrored in the destination country tends to be taken more seriously than one who presents the move as done.

What a parent may not do is leave first and litigate later. A departure without consent or authorisation, where the child was habitually resident in Brazil, is a wrongful removal under the 1980 Hague Convention if the destination is a contracting state, and Brazil applies the Convention in both directions: ACAF, Brazil’s Central Authority, transmits outgoing applications for children taken from Brazil just as it receives incoming ones. The relocating parent can find themselves ordered by a foreign court to return the child to Brazil so that a Brazilian court can decide the relocation on the merits, with their credibility damaged in that very proceeding. The reverse case, a child taken to Brazil, is the subject of our first 72 hours guide.

The other parent’s position deserves a word too. A parent who fears a relocation is not without tools: the travel authorisations discussed below are the first checkpoint, an urgent court order prohibiting departure is the second, and a well-timed request to fix the child’s base of residence under art. 1.583, §3º, is the third. Silence, or an informal “we’ll see”, is the weakest position of all, because it can later be read as consent.

Legal basis: Código Civil, arts. 1.583, §§2º–3º, and 1.584, §2º (joint custody; base of residence); ECA, arts. 3º–4º (best interests); 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto nº 3.413/2000), arts. 3 and 12 (wrongful removal; return).

Speak to counsel — relocation cases are decided on the plan, not on the wish. The documents assembled before the request is filed (school offers, housing, a proposed contact schedule, a draft mirror order) shape the outcome more than the arguments made afterwards.

How do travel authorisations for minors leaving Brazil work?

Brazil controls the exit of children through statute, and the Polícia Federal enforces it at every international departure. The rules are in the Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (ECA), arts. 83–85, and their operational form is Resolução CNJ 131/2011.

Situation	Authorisation required	Basis
Child travels abroad with both parents	None beyond passport and, where applicable, visa	ECA, art. 84, I; Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 1º, I
Child travels abroad with one parent	Express authorisation of the other parent, in a document with notarised signature (firma reconhecida), or a court authorisation	ECA, art. 84, II; Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 1º, II
Child travels abroad alone or with third parties (grandparents, school group, escort)	Authorisation of both parents, with notarised signatures, or a court authorisation	Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 1º, III
Brazilian child resident abroad returning to the country of residence, with one parent	None, on proof of residence by an Atestado de Residência issued by a Brazilian consulate less than two years earlier	Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 2º
Brazilian child travels with a foreigner resident or domiciled abroad	Prior express judicial authorisation — unless the foreigner is the child’s own parent, or the child, though born in Brazil, does not hold Brazilian nationality	ECA, art. 85; Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 3º and its parágrafo único
Parent is deceased, unknown, or has been suspended from or stripped of parental authority	Documentary proof (death certificate, or the child’s birth certificate with the relevant annotation) replaces that parent’s consent	Res. CNJ 131/2011, arts. 5º–6º
Guardian or tutor judicially appointed	May authorise the trip as if a parent	Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 7º
Parent refuses or cannot be found	Court supplies the authorisation (suprimento judicial) on the child’s best interests	ECA, arts. 84–85; CC, art. 1.631, parágrafo único

Some practical points that trip up cross-border families.

The form and its validity. The authorisation must be presented in two original copies, one of which the Polícia Federal keeps (Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 8º). On validity, the rule is often misstated. The Resolução does not impose a maximum: article 10 requires the document to state its own validity period, and provides that where none is stated the authorisation is understood to be valid for two years. So a “standing” authorisation is really an authorisation the signing parent chose to date generously — and one it may serve a parent to date narrowly. Article 11 adds a limit families overlook: unless it says so expressly, a travel authorisation is not an authorisation to establish permanent residence abroad. An authorisation can also be revoked by the parent who gave it, which is why open-ended authorisations between separated parents are a matter of trust.

The signature. The document is signed before a Brazilian notary (cartório) with the signature notarised — by autenticidade or by semelhança — or abroad before a Brazilian consular authority, in which case the consular officer’s signature on the document makes notarisation unnecessary (art. 8º, §§1º–2º). Parental authorisation may also be given by escritura pública (art. 4º). A document signed before a foreign notary is accepted in practice only with apostille and sworn translation, and the safer course for a parent abroad is the consulate.

The electronic route. Brazil also has an Autorização Eletrônica de Viagem (AEV), created by Provimento CNJ nº 103/2020 (amended by Provimento nº 120/2021) and issued through the notaries’ e-Notariado platform: the parent’s identity and signature are confirmed in a notarial video call, and the resulting document carries a QR code that the Polícia Federal and carriers can verify. It has the same value as the paper instrument. What does not work is a generic digital signature: a gov.br signature alone is not accepted for a minor’s travel authorisation.

Dual nationals. A child who is Brazilian, including a child born abroad to a Brazilian parent and registered as such, is subject to these rules when leaving Brazil, regardless of which passport the child holds for the destination. The Polícia Federal applies Brazilian law to Brazilian children.

Passports. A Brazilian passport for a minor is issued only with both parents’ consent, or a court order, which is a checkpoint before the airport checkpoint. A foreign passport in the child’s bag does not remove the need for the ECA authorisation on departure.

Article 85, and the exception that matters most to binational families. Read alone, ECA article 85 is alarming: “Sem prévia e expressa autorização judicial, nenhuma criança ou adolescente nascido em território nacional poderá sair do País em companhia de estrangeiro residente ou domiciliado no exterior.” Taken literally, that would require a court order every time a foreign parent living abroad took their own child on holiday.

It does not, and this is the single most useful thing in this section. Resolução CNJ 131/2011, article 3º, restates the prohibition and then, in its parágrafo único, disapplies it in two cases: where the foreigner is the child’s own parent (genitor), and where the child, though born in Brazil, does not hold Brazilian nationality. In either case the ordinary rules of articles 1º and 2º apply instead — that is, the other parent’s notarised authorisation is enough. Article 85 is aimed at trafficking and irregular adoption, not at a father in Dublin taking his daughter to see her grandparents.

Two cautions remain. First, the exception is for a parent; a grandparent, a step-parent, or a family friend resident abroad is not covered, and a Brazilian child travelling with them does need prior judicial authorisation. Second, the Polícia Federal officer at the gate is applying the Resolução, not an argument, so the foreign parent should be able to show the parental link — an apostilled and sworn-translated birth certificate where the Brazilian certificate is not to hand.

Legal basis: ECA (Lei nº 8.069/1990), art. 83 (as amended by Lei nº 13.812/2019, now covering children and adolescents under 16 for travel outside the comarca), and arts. 84 and 85 (travel abroad); Resolução CNJ nº 131/2011, arts. 1º–11, in particular art. 3º and its parágrafo único; Provimento CNJ nº 103/2020 (as amended by Provimento nº 120/2021), on the Autorização Eletrônica de Viagem; Código Civil, art. 1.631, parágrafo único (court resolves parental disagreement).

Speak to counsel — the authorisation is a document with a life cycle. It can be scoped too narrowly, drafted so that it is not accepted, allowed to expire mid-trip, or revoked without the other parent’s knowledge. Separated parents in two countries should agree the travel calendar and paper it once, properly, rather than negotiate before each flight.

What is a mirror order, and when is one worth obtaining?

A mirror order is an order made by a court in the second country that reproduces the terms of an order in the first, so that the same arrangement exists as a domestic title in both places. The related tool is an undertaking: a formal promise given to a court, for example that a parent will return the child on a given date, will not apply to vary custody abroad, or will fund the return flight, which the court records and which the other parent can rely on.

Neither is a statutory institute in Brazil, and neither needs to be. They are practices developed in cross-border case law, and Brazil accommodates them through two ordinary doors. First, an agreement between the parents can be submitted to a Brazilian family court for approval (homologação de acordo), which turns it into a Brazilian judicial title enforceable here, including by the Polícia Federal. Second, a consensual foreign order can be recognised by the STJ through the homologation procedure described above; consensual recognitions are faster than contested ones. Either way, the Brazilian judge is not creating a new regime; the judge is giving Brazilian effect to terms the parents have already accepted.

Mirror orders earn their keep in three situations.

• Agreed holidays and visits. A parent abroad who is anxious that a Brazilian holiday will turn into a retention, and a parent in Brazil who is anxious about the reverse, can both be reassured by an order in each country fixing the dates and the return, made before the trip.
• Agreed relocations. A relocation to Brazil, or from it, is far more likely to be authorised, and far more likely to hold, when the contact arrangements for the parent left behind already exist as an enforceable order in the destination country.
• Voluntary returns in Hague cases. When a return application is resolved by agreement, the parents commonly need the terms, interim custody, housing, maintenance, and no criminal complaint, to be enforceable in the country of return before the flight is booked. Mirror orders and undertakings are the standard scaffolding.

Their limit is equally clear. A mirror order is only as good as the court that made it and the willingness of that country’s authorities to enforce it, and a parent determined to breach an agreement will breach a mirrored one too. The 1980 Hague Convention remains the backstop for wrongful removals and retentions between contracting states; the mirror order’s contribution is to make breach less likely and the remedy quicker.

Legal basis: approval of parental agreements by Brazilian family courts follows the CPC/2015 (arts. 190, 200, 487, III, “b”, and 515, II–III) and the ECA’s best-interests standard; recognition of consensual foreign orders follows CPC arts. 960–965; the 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto nº 3.413/2000) frames voluntary returns in arts. 7(c) and 10.

How do you prevent a removal from Brazil when the risk is real?

The tools are Brazilian, and they work in layers.

Revoke any standing travel authorisation. A parent who signed a general authorisation in calmer times can withdraw it, in writing, through the same notarial route, and should ensure the other parent and, where appropriate, the school are informed.

Seek an urgent court order. A family court may, on a showing of concrete risk, prohibit the child’s departure from the country and order the retention of the child’s passports, communicating the decision to the Polícia Federal, which maintains the restriction at points of departure. Evidence that persuades a judge is specific: bookings, messages announcing a move, a pattern of unauthorised travel, a parent’s ties abroad combined with the severing of ties in Brazil. General anxiety does not. The CPC’s provisional measures (arts. 294–311) supply the procedure. Brazilian rules describe the shape of this relief rather than a single national registry: in Hague return cases, Resolução CNJ 449/2022, art. 18, §1º, directs the judge, where there is a risk of a fresh removal, to consider measures restricting travel, “such as retention of the passport and an alert to the border authorities”. A family court order takes the same form, and how it reaches the Polícia Federal in a given district is something counsel confirms locally rather than assumes.

Enforce a foreign prohibition here. Where a court abroad has already prohibited removal of the child, the letter-rogatory route under CPC art. 962 allows its urgent enforcement in Brazil without waiting for full recognition.

Control the passports. Minors’ Brazilian passports require both parents’ consent to issue and can be retained by court order; foreign passports can be the subject of the same order. Practical custody of the documents is not a legal tool, but it is often what makes the legal tools effective.

The mirror image applies to a parent in Brazil worried about a removal to Brazil from abroad: the tools there are foreign and are factual context outside this guide, but the principle is the same. Get the order before the flight.

Legal basis: CPC/2015, arts. 294–311 (urgent and provisional measures) and art. 962 (urgent foreign measures by letter rogatory); ECA, arts. 83–85; Decreto nº 5.978/2006 (passport regulation), on issuance to minors.

How does a Brazilian custody order travel abroad?

It travels, but slowly, and by the other country’s rules. Because Brazil is not a party to the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, a Brazilian custody order is recognised abroad under the destination country’s domestic law on foreign judgments, which ranges from streamlined registration to a full new proceeding. Procedures abroad are factual context only; counsel in that country advises on them.

Two Brazilian-side practices make the journey easier. First, drafting the order, or the agreement approved by the Brazilian court, with the foreign reader in mind: clear terms about residence, contact, travel, and communication translate better than references to Brazilian procedural concepts. Second, obtaining the mirror order abroad before it is needed, so that a breach is met with an existing title rather than the start of a recognition case.

The 1980 Hague Convention provides the two exceptions to slowness. Where a child has been wrongfully removed from Brazil to a contracting state, the return mechanism applies, through ACAF. And under article 21, a Brazilian parent whose access rights are being frustrated abroad may apply for assistance in organising and securing them, which Central Authorities provide even where no removal has occurred.

Legal basis: 1980 Hague Convention (Decreto nº 3.413/2000), arts. 3, 7, 12, and 21; recognition of Brazilian orders abroad depends on the law of the requested state.

What happens to the order after the family moves?

Custody orders follow the child, not the paper. Once a relocation has been authorised and carried out, the child’s habitual residence changes, and with it the court that will decide future disputes: a child now settled in Toronto will, over time, have their custody questions decided by a Canadian court, and a Brazilian order will be the starting point that court considers rather than the last word. The parent who stayed in Brazil should assume that modifications, enforcement of contact, and maintenance adjustments will increasingly happen in the child’s new country, and plan the mirror order accordingly.

The converse is true for a child relocated to Brazil: a Brazilian family court becomes the natural forum, applying the Código Civil’s joint-custody framework and the ECA’s best-interests standard to a family that may have been formed under different rules. Foreign parents sometimes find that Brazilian judges give more weight to the child’s contact with both parents, and to expert psychosocial reports, than they are used to; our guide on parental alienation claims in cross-border custody cases in Brazil explains one feature of Brazilian practice that surprises many of them.

Legal basis: CPC/2015, art. 21; STJ Súmula nº 383; Código Civil, arts. 1.583–1.590; Lei nº 12.318/2010, art. 8º (unilateral changes of domicile do not shift jurisdiction).

Hypothetical illustration — not a real client.

Imagine a Brazilian mother in São Paulo and an Irish father in Dublin, divorced in Brazil, with joint custody of a nine-year-old who lives in São Paulo. The mother receives a job offer in Lisbon and proposes to move with the child. Rather than buy a ticket, she assembles a plan: the school in Lisbon, housing, a proposed schedule giving the father the whole summer and alternate Christmases in Dublin, weekly video calls, and an offer to have the arrangement mirrored by a Portuguese court after the move. The father, initially opposed, is advised that a unilateral departure would give him a Hague claim but that a well-structured agreement gives him more time with his son than he has now.

The parents sign an agreement, a São Paulo family court approves it, the father signs a specific travel authorisation at the Brazilian consulate in Dublin, and, because the child was born in Brazil and will travel with the mother, no article 85 authorisation is needed for the move itself. After the relocation, a Portuguese court makes a mirror order on the same terms. Two years later, when a dispute arises about a summer trip, both parents hold an enforceable title in the country where the child lives.

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?

• Assuming the foreign order is self-executing in Brazil. It needs STJ recognition, or a fresh Brazilian order; urgent parts can go by letter rogatory.
• Assuming that because the divorce needed no homologation, the custody terms do not either. Art. 961, §5º, exempts consensual divorces, not orders about children.
• Leaving first and seeking authorisation later. A departure without consent or court authorisation from Brazil can be a wrongful removal under the Hague Convention, and it poisons the later relocation case.
• Misreading article 85. It does require a judicial authorisation when a Brazilian child leaves with a foreigner resident abroad — but not when that foreigner is the child’s own parent (Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 3º, parágrafo único). Families obtain court orders they did not need, and third-party escorts travel without the order they did.
• Signing an open-ended authorisation, or forgetting one was signed. An authorisation that states no validity period lasts two years and then stops working, and any authorisation can be revoked; both facts surprise families at the airport. Nor does a travel authorisation permit permanent residence abroad unless it says so (Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 11).
• Treating “we’ll see” as a safe position. Silence can be read as consent; a parent who fears a move should act on the travel authorisation, the court, and the base-of-residence rule.
• Obtaining the mirror order after the breach. Its whole value is that it exists before the trip.
• Drafting Brazilian orders for Brazilian readers only. An order that will be recognised abroad should read clearly to a foreign judge.
• Filing custody in the wrong country. Jurisdiction follows the child’s domicile (Súmula 383) and cannot be manufactured by moving the child (Lei 12.318/2010, art. 8º).

Cross-border custody orders at a glance

Question	Answer	Where
Foreign custody order in Brazil	Needs STJ recognition; urgent measures via letter rogatory	CF art. 105, I, “i”; CPC arts. 960–965, 962
Consensual foreign divorce	No recognition needed, but child orders still need it	CPC art. 961, §5º
Default custody regime	Joint custody; court may fix base of residence; excluded where domestic-violence risk	CC arts. 1.583–1.584; Lei 13.058/2014; Lei 14.713/2023
Relocation abroad	Consent of the other parent or court authorisation; leaving without either may be wrongful removal	CC art. 1.584, §2º; Hague 1980, art. 3
Travel with one parent	Notarised authorisation of the other parent or court order	ECA art. 84, II; Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 1º
Travel alone or with third parties	Both parents’ notarised authorisation or court order	Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 1º, III
Validity of the authorisation	Whatever period the document states; two years if it states none	Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 10
Electronic authorisation	AEV via e-Notariado, same value as the paper instrument	Provimento CNJ 103/2020
Brazilian child with foreigner resident abroad	Prior judicial authorisation — not required where the foreigner is the child’s own parent	ECA art. 85; Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 3º, parágrafo único
Mirror orders and undertakings	Practice tools; effected in Brazil by court approval of the agreement or STJ recognition	CPC arts. 487, III, “b”, 960–965
Preventing removal	Revoke authorisations; urgent order prohibiting departure and retaining passports; PF communication	CPC arts. 294–311; ECA arts. 83–85
Brazilian order abroad	Recognised under the destination’s law; Brazil not party to Hague 1996; Hague 1980 for return and access	Hague 1980 arts. 12, 21

Key terms

• Homologação de sentença estrangeira — recognition of a foreign judgment by the STJ.
• Carta rogatória — letter rogatory; the channel for urgent foreign measures under CPC art. 962.
• Guarda compartilhada — joint custody, the Brazilian default.
• Base de moradia — the city fixed by the court as the child’s residence base (CC art. 1.583, §3º).
• Autorização de viagem — the ECA travel authorisation for minors leaving Brazil.
• AEV — Autorização Eletrônica de Viagem, the electronic version issued through e-Notariado.
• Firma reconhecida — notarised signature, required on travel authorisations.
• Suprimento judicial — a court order supplying a parent’s missing consent.
• Mirror order — an order in the second country reproducing the first country’s order.
• Undertaking — a formal promise recorded by a court, relied on in voluntary returns and agreed travel.
• ACAF — Brazil’s Central Authority under the 1980 Hague Convention, for incoming and outgoing cases.

Key takeaways

• Brazilian authorities act on Brazilian titles. A foreign custody order needs STJ recognition (CPC arts. 960–965); urgent foreign measures can be enforced by letter rogatory (art. 962).
• Joint custody is the default (Lei 13.058/2014), so relocation abroad requires the other parent’s consent or a court authorisation; leaving without either can be a wrongful removal under the Hague Convention.
• Children leave Brazil under the ECA, arts. 83–85, and Resolução CNJ 131/2011: notarised authorisation from the non-travelling parent, from both parents when the child travels alone or with third parties, and a judicial authorisation when a Brazilian child leaves with a foreigner resident abroad — except where that foreigner is the child’s own parent (Res. CNJ 131/2011, art. 3º, parágrafo único). An authorisation states its own validity and, silent, lasts two years; the electronic AEV route exists via e-Notariado.
• Mirror orders and undertakings are practice tools, effected in Brazil through court approval of an agreement or STJ recognition; obtain them before the trip, not after the breach.
• Prevention is layered: revoke standing authorisations, seek an urgent order prohibiting departure and retaining passports, and enforce foreign prohibitions by letter rogatory.
• Brazil is not in the 1996 Hague Convention, so Brazilian orders travel abroad under each country’s own rules; the 1980 Convention supplies return and access remedies.
• Jurisdiction follows the child (Súmula 383) and cannot be manufactured by moving the child (Lei 12.318/2010, art. 8º).
• Draft for both readers: an order or agreement meant to be mirrored should be clear to a foreign judge.

Related guides on this site

• Child abduction to Brazil: the first 72 hours for a left-behind parent
• International child abduction and the Hague Convention in Brazil
• Parental alienation claims in cross-border custody cases in Brazil
• Child custody in Brazil for foreign parents
• Joint custody in Brazil: complete guide
• International divorce in Brazil: a complete guide
• Apostille and document validation for Brazil

How ZS Advogados can help

Cross-border custody is document work done in the right order: recognising the foreign order, or obtaining a Brazilian one, before it is needed; papering travel so that the Polícia Federal has nothing to question; structuring a relocation as a plan a court can authorise and a foreign court can mirror; and, when the risk turns concrete, moving quickly for the urgent measures that keep a child in the country while the merits are decided.

Our team represents parents on both sides of these situations: STJ recognition of foreign custody orders and letters rogatory for urgent measures, relocation authorisations and their contact schedules, travel authorisations, including the article 85 judicial authorisation where it is genuinely required, agreements drafted to be mirrored abroad, and urgent applications to prevent removal. We work in English and Portuguese and coordinate with your counsel abroad. Details, including how to reach an attorney directly, are on our cross-border family law page, or by telephone at +55 (18) 3908-1653.

• Family law — custody, relocation, travel authorisations, urgent measures
• International law — STJ recognition, letters rogatory, coordination with foreign counsel

Book a consultation to have your order, your travel calendar, or your relocation plan reviewed before the date that matters.

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

• Constituição Federal — art. 105, I, “i” (recognition of foreign judgments by the STJ) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 13.105/2015 — Código de Processo Civil (arts. 21–25, 294–311, 960–965) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 10.406/2002 — Código Civil (arts. 1.583–1.590, 1.631) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 13.058/2014 — joint custody as the default (Planalto)
• Lei nº 14.713/2023 — joint custody excluded where there is a risk of domestic violence (Planalto)
• Lei nº 8.069/1990 — Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (arts. 83–85, 147) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 12.318/2010 — parental alienation (art. 8º, jurisdiction) (Planalto)
• Resolução CNJ nº 131/2011 — travel authorisations for Brazilian children and adolescents abroad (CNJ)
• Provimento CNJ nº 103/2020 — Autorização Eletrônica de Viagem (AEV) via e-Notariado (CNJ)
• Resolução CNJ nº 449/2022 — procedure in 1980 Hague Convention return actions, incl. art. 18, §1º on travel restrictions (CNJ)
• CNJ — Viagem ao Exterior (programme page on travel of children and adolescents)
• Decreto nº 3.413/2000 — 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Planalto)
• HCCH — status table of the 1996 Child Protection Convention
• Superior Tribunal de Justiça — Súmula nº 383 and the foreign-judgment recognition procedure (STJ)
• Polícia Federal — authorisation for minors: information and model forms (gov.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 the law, courts, and procedures of other countries are factual context only. Travel-authorisation forms, validity periods, and Polícia Federal practice change and must be confirmed before any trip. 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.