Revising or Ending Child Support After Moving Abroad

The move was supposed to be the hard part. New country, new job, new lease — and, somewhere in the paperwork, a Brazilian child support order that made sense when you earned in reais and lived twenty minutes from your child’s school. Now the salary comes in euros or dollars, the rent is triple, the flights home cost a month’s support, and the order sits there unchanged, deducted from a Brazilian account that is slowly emptying.

Or you are on the other side of it: the other parent left, the transfers became irregular, and a message arrives proposing to “adjust” the amount because “life abroad is expensive.” Either way, the same question presents itself — can a Brazilian support order be revised or ended once one parent lives abroad, and how?

The thing this guide turns on is a single rule: moving changes nothing by itself. A Brazilian support order is revised only by a Brazilian court — through a modification action, an exoneration action, or the homologation of a consensual agreement — and until that happens, the original amount accrues and is enforceable, including through civil imprisonment. Everything else is about how to obtain a lawful change quickly and on fair terms.

This is educational content prepared by the ZS Advogados Associados team for parents — Brazilian or foreign — who are subject to or benefit from a Brazilian child support order and who now live in different countries. It covers why the move itself is not a ground, where the modification case must be filed, what changes in circumstances Brazilian courts accept, the currency problem, the timing rules that decide who pays for delay, how support ends, and how to handle it all from abroad. It complements our guide to child support calculation and enforcement in Brazil, which explains how amounts are fixed in the first place, and our companion guide to enforcing child support against a parent in Brazil from abroad, written for the other side of the same problem. Our service page on child support enforcement in Brazil describes how we act on both sides.

Does moving abroad change a Brazilian support order?

No. A Brazilian support order has a peculiar legal status: it never becomes permanently final in the way most judgments do, but it also never changes on its own.

Article 15 of Lei 5.478/1968 (the Lei de Alimentos) provides that a decision on support does not become immutable and may be revised at any time in light of a change in the financial situation of the parties. Article 1.699 of the Código Civil states the same rule from the substantive side: if, after support is fixed, the situation of either party changes, the interested party may ask for exoneration, reduction, or increase. The mechanism in both cases is an action — the ação revisional de alimentos to change the amount, the ação de exoneração to end the obligation — or a consensual agreement submitted for homologation.

Three consequences follow for the parent who moved.

The order keeps running. Every month at the old amount is owed in full until a new decision or homologated agreement replaces it. Paying less “in the meantime” is a default, not an adjustment.

Arrears are enforceable. Missed installments open the enforcement chapter of the CPC/2015 — payroll deduction if you still have Brazilian income, seizure of Brazilian assets, credit-bureau registration, and, for the last three installments plus those accruing during the case, the civil-imprisonment route of art. 528. Living abroad does not make these tools disappear: Brazilian assets remain reachable, a coercive order follows you on return, and both Hague 2007 and the 1956 New York Convention give the creditor channels to pursue you where you now live. Our companion guide on enforcement against a parent in Brazil describes the mirror image.

The remedy is fast if you use it. The modification action is a summary procedure with a mandatory conciliation attempt, and a parent with genuine hardship can request provisional relief at the outset (CPC art. 300) so that a reduction operates while the case is decided.

Legal basis: revisability of support at any time on a change of financial circumstances is art. 15 da Lei nº 5.478/1968; exoneration, reduction, and increase on a change of circumstances is art. 1.699 do Código Civil (Lei nº 10.406/2002); provisional relief is art. 300 do CPC/2015; enforcement of support is CPC arts. 528–533.

Where must the modification case be filed?

This is the question expatriate parents most often get wrong, and the one where Brazilian law and the Hague system are most emphatic.

When the child stays in Brazil. Brazilian courts have jurisdiction over support actions whenever the creditor is domiciled or resident in Brazil (CPC art. 22, I, a), and venue lies at the creditor’s domicile (CPC art. 53, II). A modification action about a Brazilian order for a child living in Brazil is therefore filed in Brazil, in the family court of the child’s city — typically the same court that fixed the original amount.

The Hague brake on forum shopping. Where the paying parent now lives in a country that is a party to the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention — as Brazil has been since 2017 under Decreto 9.176/2017 — article 18 imposes a specific limit: as long as the creditor remains habitually resident in the Contracting State where the decision was made, the debtor may not bring proceedings to modify that decision in any other Contracting State, except in narrow situations such as the creditor’s express submission to the new forum or the original State’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction. A reduction obtained from a foreign court in breach of this rule will, in practice, not be recognized in Brazil, and the Brazilian order will continue to accrue.

When the creditor also moved abroad. If the child and the receiving parent now live in the same foreign country as the payer, or in a third country, the picture changes. Brazilian jurisdiction over the paying parent persists only if the payer remains domiciled in Brazil or holds assets or income there (CPC arts. 21, I, and 22, I, b). A modification decided by a competent foreign court can then be recognized in Brazil through homologation by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (CPC arts. 960–965), which is what will be needed if the old Brazilian order must be formally superseded on the Brazilian record. Which forum to use is a strategic decision made with counsel in both countries.

Debtor applications through the Convention. The 2007 Convention also allows a debtor to apply, through central authorities, for the modification of a decision (art. 10(2)). The application travels from the debtor’s central authority to Brazil’s — the Ministry of Justice’s DRCI — and is processed in the Brazilian court. It is a route without private counsel, and correspondingly slow; most expatriate parents who need a change within months retain Brazilian counsel and file directly.

Legal basis: Brazilian jurisdiction over support claims where the creditor is domiciled in Brazil is art. 22, I, “a”, do CPC/2015, and where the defendant has assets or income in Brazil, art. 22, I, “b”; venue at the creditor’s domicile is art. 53, II; the limit on modification proceedings by the debtor in another Contracting State is art. 18 of the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention, promulgated by Decreto nº 9.176/2017, and debtor applications are art. 10(2); recognition of foreign judgments is CPC arts. 960–965.

What changes of circumstances do Brazilian courts accept?

The standard is the need-ability-proportionality test of Código Civil art. 1.694, §1º: support is fixed in proportion to the needs of the child and the means of the parent. A modification succeeds when one side of that balance has materially and provably shifted since the last order. The move itself is not the shift; what happened to needs and means because of the move may be.

Circumstance	Typical treatment in Brazilian courts
Job loss or involuntary drop in foreign income	Accepted ground for reduction when documented; courts examine whether the drop is genuine and whether the parent sought comparable work
Voluntary career change to lower-paid work abroad	Viewed skeptically; the parent’s capacity to earn matters, not only actual income
Higher cost of living in the new country	Considered, but weighed against the fact that the move was chosen; rarely sufficient alone
Currency movement making the order far heavier or lighter in the payer’s currency	Recognized as a reason to restructure the amount (fixed sum, index, floor/ceiling)
New partner or new children	Not an automatic reduction; the payer must prove genuine inability to meet all obligations (Código Civil art. 1.694 read with art. 1.698)
Child’s needs increased — school fees, medical treatment, adolescence	Ground for increase; foreign-currency costs of the child, if the child also moved, are relevant
Child’s needs decreased — receiving parent’s new income, child’s own earnings	Ground for reduction
Child moved to live with the paying parent abroad	Ground for exoneration or reversal of the obligation
Serious illness or disability of the payer	Accepted ground for reduction

Two evidentiary rules shape every case. Foreign facts need Brazilian form: tax returns, employment contracts, payslips, termination letters, lease agreements, and bank statements from abroad must be apostilled under the 1961 Hague Convention (Decreto 8.660/2016) and sworn-translated into Portuguese. And the judge compares two moments: the situation at the time of the original order and the situation now. A parent who never disclosed full income at the first fixing will find the comparison unhelpful.

Legal basis: the need-ability-proportionality test is art. 1.694, §1º, do Código Civil; the standard for revision is a change in the financial situation of the parties, art. 1.699 do Código Civil and art. 15 da Lei nº 5.478/1968; apostille of foreign public documents is Decreto nº 8.660/2016; sworn translation is CPC art. 192 and Código Civil art. 224.

Speak to counsel — “change” is a comparison, not a feeling. The strength of a modification claim depends on what the original order was based on, which is often buried in an old case file. Have counsel pull that record before deciding whether to file.

How do currency and foreign income affect the amount?

This is the practical heart of most expatriate modification cases, and Brazilian practice offers workable structures.

Percentage orders. Many Brazilian orders fix support as a percentage of net earnings, often with payroll deduction. Once the payer earns abroad, there is no Brazilian employer to deduct at source, and the percentage must be applied to a foreign salary, documented and converted. Disputes over what “net” means in a foreign tax system, over bonuses and equity, and over the exchange rate for each month are common. Courts frequently respond by restructuring the order into a fixed amount in reais, adjusted annually by an inflation index or by the minimum wage, sometimes with a floor and ceiling around a percentage.

Fixed-amount orders and exchange-rate drift. An order fixed in reais becomes cheaper or dearer in the payer’s currency as the real moves. A parent paid in a strong currency who claims hardship because “the order is high” will be met with the observation that the real has, over long periods, depreciated against major currencies; the reverse argument — that the child’s share has shrunk in real terms — is available to the receiving parent. Courts treat sustained, significant exchange-rate movement as a legitimate reason to revisit the structure, not merely the number.

Fixing support in a foreign currency. The starting rule is Código Civil art. 318: agreements to pay in gold or foreign currency, or to compensate the difference between a foreign currency and the national one, are void “except in the cases provided for in special legislation”. The special legislation today is Lei 14.286/2021, which repealed the old Decreto-Lei 857/1969; its art. 13 lists the situations in which a foreign-currency stipulation is admitted for obligations enforceable in Brazil, and inciso II covers obligations whose creditor or debtor is a non-resident — with the closing paragraph declaring any stipulation outside that list void by operation of law. Whether that exception reaches a support order or a homologated support agreement where one parent or the child is a non-resident is not a settled question, and payment inside Brazil is made in reais regardless. What is uncontroversial is the safer structure: a fixed sum in reais adjusted by an official index — support instalments “shall be adjusted according to a regularly established official index” (Código Civil art. 1.710) — and a consensual agreement can specify the index, the date, and the conversion mechanics far more precisely than a contested judgment will.

Paying from abroad. International transfers into the receiving parent’s Brazilian account are subject to Banco Central foreign-exchange rules and bank compliance checks; small recurring remittances for family maintenance are routine but should be traceable and described consistently. Cash carried by relatives or transfers to third parties cannot be proven and will not be credited in an enforcement dispute. Our guide on international money transfers to and from Brazil covers the mechanics.

Legal basis: support is fixed by reference to the parties’ means and needs under art. 1.694, §1º, do Código Civil and may be structured as a percentage or a fixed sum; instalments are adjusted by an official index under art. 1.710; agreements to pay in foreign currency are void save in the cases of special legislation (art. 318 do Código Civil), the special legislation being art. 13 da Lei nº 14.286/2021, which repealed Decreto-Lei nº 857/1969; payroll deduction is CPC art. 529; foreign-exchange operations are governed by Lei nº 14.286/2021 and Banco Central regulation.

When do the effects of a modification start — and can arrears be reduced?

Timing rules decide who bears the cost of delay, and they are unforgiving.

Effects run from service. Under Lei 5.478/1968, art. 13, §2º, support fixed in an action is owed from the date the defendant is served. The STJ has extended this rule to modification and exoneration: the new amount — higher, lower, or zero — takes effect from the date the other party was served in the modification action, not from the date of the judgment and not from the date the circumstances changed. A parent who waits a year to file pays the old amount for that year.

Paid support is not refunded. Two distinct rules do the work here, and it is worth separating them. Código Civil art. 1.707 is the statutory one: the creditor may decline to exercise the right to support but may not renounce it, and the credit “is not susceptible of assignment, set-off, or attachment” — so support already paid cannot be offset against future instalments. The rule that support already paid cannot be recovered at all, even if the court later finds the amount was too high, is the principle of irrepetibilidade, settled in Brazilian case law and doctrine rather than written into that article. Either way the practical result is the same: a reduction operates prospectively only.

Arrears are not retroactively reduced. Installments that accrued at the old amount before service in the modification action remain owed at that amount. A parent who unilaterally paid less builds a debt that the modification does not erase — and that debt may be enforced through the imprisonment route for the last three installments.

Provisional relief is the exception. Where the hardship is urgent and well documented, counsel can request tutela de urgência (CPC art. 300) at the moment of filing, so that a provisional reduction operates from the interim order. Courts grant it cautiously in support cases, because the child’s need is presumed, but a credible file — termination letter, new income, budget — can succeed.

Legal basis: retroaction of support to service is art. 13, §2º, da Lei nº 5.478/1968 — “in any case, the support fixed retroacts to the date of service” — applied by the STJ to increases, reductions, and exonerations; the non-assignability, non-set-off, and non-attachability of the support credit is art. 1.707 do Código Civil, while non-refundability (irrepetibilidade) is a principle of case law and doctrine rather than a provision of that article; provisional relief is art. 300 do CPC/2015.

How does child support end?

Ending support — exoneração — is a separate question from reducing it, with its own rules. None of the common triggers operates automatically.

Majority. Turning 18 does not end support. STJ Súmula 358 is explicit: “the cancellation of maintenance for a child who has reached the age of majority is subject to a judicial decision, with adversarial process, even in the same case file.” What ends at 18 is the parental authority; the support obligation continues on the basis of kinship, and it is the child’s need that must now be shown rather than presumed from minority.

There is no age 24 rule. This is worth saying plainly, because the figure circulates as though it were law. Brazilian statute fixes no terminal age for child support. What the STJ’s case law does hold is that where the child continues into higher or technical education after majority, the continuation of need is presumed relatively (iuris tantum), so the burden of proving the contrary shifts to the parent seeking exoneration; and that the duty is discharged on completion of the undergraduate degree, which enables the graduate to practise the profession and support themselves — postgraduate study does not extend it indefinitely. The number 24 appears frequently in agreements between parents and adult children, which fix graduation or a given age as the end point, whichever comes first — and it is enforceable there because the parties agreed it, not because a statute says so.

The child’s marriage or stable union. Under Código Civil art. 1.708, the right to support ends when the creditor marries, enters a stable union, or forms a concubinage — an objective trigger that still requires a court to declare it.

The child’s own financial independence — a job, a business, income — grounds exoneration when proven.

The child moves to live with the paying parent. When a child relocates abroad to live with the parent who was paying, that parent’s obligation is met in kind and the other parent’s may arise; the change must be formalized, usually together with a custody modification. Our guides on child custody in international marriages and international child abduction and the Hague Convention explain why a relocation without authorization creates a far larger problem than the support order.

The procedure. Exoneration is sought by an action, or by a consensual termination submitted to the family court for homologation (CPC art. 725, VIII, which covers “homologation of extrajudicial settlements, of any nature or value”). Súmula 358 means the adult child must be heard either way. Brazilian law does provide extrajudicial routes for consensual family matters — CPC art. 733 allows consensual divorce, separation, and dissolution of a stable union to be done by public deed, without judicial homologation, where there is no unborn child and no incapable children, with both parties assisted by counsel — and notarial rules on what else may be settled at a notary have been moving. Whether a particular consensual termination of support can be formalised at a notary depends on the rules in force where the deed would be drawn, and should be confirmed there before anyone relies on it; where any doubt exists, judicial homologation is the route that is certain to work.

Legal basis: judicial decision with adversarial process is required to cancel support on majority — STJ Súmula 358; termination on the creditor’s marriage, stable union, or concubinage is art. 1.708 do Código Civil; the reciprocal duty of support between parents and children rests on kinship under arts. 1.694 and 1.696 do Código Civil (art. 229 da Constituição Federal states the parents’ duty to assist, raise and educate their minor children, and is not the source of the adult child’s claim); homologation of extrajudicial settlements is CPC art. 725, VIII, and extrajudicial consensual divorce and dissolution of a stable union by public deed, where there is no unborn or incapable child, is CPC art. 733.

Can the parents agree instead of litigating?

Yes — and for cross-border families a well-drafted agreement is usually better than a contested judgment, because it can address currency, payment mechanics, and future review in ways a judge rarely will.

Homologation gives the agreement teeth. A joint petition asking the family court to homologate the new terms (CPC art. 725, VIII, on homologation of extrajudicial settlements) converts the agreement into an enforceable court order and extinguishes the old one. Without homologation, the original order remains the enforceable title, whatever the parents agreed.

What a cross-border agreement should address. The amount and its structure (fixed sum, percentage with floor and ceiling); the currency of calculation and of payment; the exchange-rate reference if any; the adjustment index (IPCA, minimum wage) and date; the payment channel and proof; which parent bears transfer costs; direct payment of specific expenses (school, health plan) versus cash; the treatment of travel costs for contact; a review clause tied to objective events; and, where the receiving parent may also move, a clause on jurisdiction consistent with the Hague framework. Mediation, including online mediation, is available and encouraged (CPC arts. 165–175; Lei 13.140/2015).

Limits. The agreement cannot waive the child’s right to support (Código Civil art. 1.707); it can only adjust amount and form. The Ministério Público participates in cases involving minors (CPC art. 178, II) and will object to terms that leave the child unprotected.

Legal basis: homologation of extrajudicial settlements is CPC art. 725, VIII; mediation is CPC arts. 165–175 and Lei nº 13.140/2015; non-waivability of support is art. 1.707 do Código Civil; participation of the Ministério Público in cases involving minors is CPC art. 178, II.

How do you run the case from abroad?

Almost entirely by document and by video.

Power of attorney. Counsel files under a procuração signed abroad before a notary, apostilled, and sworn-translated. Powers to settle and to receive should be express if a consensual outcome is likely (CPC art. 105).

The evidence file. For a reduction: employment contract or termination letter, payslips, the most recent foreign tax return, a lease, and a realistic monthly budget in the foreign currency with a conversion into reais; for an increase: the child’s expense schedule with receipts. Everything foreign is apostilled and sworn-translated, and everything is dated so the judge can compare “then” and “now”.

Hearings. The Lei de Alimentos builds the case around a conciliation-and-judgment hearing, and art. 6º of that law states that the claimant and the defendant “must be present, independently of summons and of the attendance of their representatives”, with non-appearance carrying consequences under art. 7º. That is not the same as saying a parent abroad must fly back: the CPC expressly admits procedural acts “by videoconference or other technological means of transmitting sound and image in real time” (art. 236, §3º), and remote hearings are now routine. What it does mean is that attendance — remote or physical — is the rule for that hearing rather than an optional extra, and counsel should confirm with the specific court how it is being held.

Keep paying — and keep records. Until the new order issues, pay the old amount through traceable channels. If that is genuinely impossible, pay what is possible, document why, and ask for provisional relief; a parent who is visibly trying is treated differently from one who has gone silent.

Legal basis: representation and special powers are CPC arts. 104–105 — the powers to receive service, settle, receive and give discharge must appear in a specific clause (art. 105); videoconference acts are CPC art. 236, §3º; the conciliation-and-judgment hearing in support cases, and the parties’ attendance, are arts. 5º–9º da Lei nº 5.478/1968, alongside the conciliation hearing of CPC art. 334.

Hypothetical illustration — not a real client. A father relocates from Campinas to Dublin for a job in 2025, under a 2021 order fixing support for his daughter at 30% of net earnings with payroll deduction. In Dublin his gross salary is higher in nominal terms, but after Irish taxes, rent, and travel to see his daughter twice a year, the converted percentage is far above what the 2021 judge contemplated, and the mother, in Campinas, finds monthly transfers arriving in irregular amounts. Through Brazilian counsel, both parents negotiate a restructured order — a fixed sum in reais adjusted annually by the IPCA, direct payment of school fees, and a review clause tied to either parent’s move — and submit it for homologation, which replaces the 2021 order. Every distinguishing detail here is invented — the cities, the years, the percentage, and the terms. Nothing in this example predicts any outcome.

What are the most common mistakes?

• Paying less unilaterally after the move. The old amount accrues in full; the shortfall becomes enforceable arrears.
• Asking the new country’s court to reduce a Brazilian order for a child in Brazil. Hague 2007 art. 18 and CPC arts. 22 and 53 point to Brazil; the foreign reduction is unlikely to be recognized.
• Filing late. Effects run from service in the modification action; every month of delay is paid at the old amount.
• Arguing “life abroad is expensive” without documents. Courts compare then and now on evidence; the move itself is not a ground.
• Expecting a refund or offset after a reduction. Support paid is not refundable (Código Civil art. 1.707).
• Stopping at 18, or assuming support ends at 24. Súmula 358 requires a judicial decision with the child heard, and no statute fixes a terminal age.
• Informal agreements over messaging apps. Without homologation, the old order remains the enforceable title.
• Untraceable payments. Cash through relatives cannot be proven in an enforcement dispute.

At a glance

Question	Short answer
Does the move change the order?	No — only a court decision or homologated agreement does (CC art. 1.699; Lei 5.478/68, art. 15)
Where to file when the child is in Brazil?	Brazil, at the child’s domicile (CPC arts. 22, I, and 53, II); Hague 2007 art. 18 blocks debtor forum shopping
What are valid grounds?	Proven change in need or means since the last order — not the move itself
From when does a reduction apply?	From service in the modification action (Lei 5.478/68, art. 13, §2º); no refund, no offset
Can I stop at 18?	Not without a judicial decision with adversarial process (STJ Súmula 358); no age-24 rule — education extends it, graduation discharges it
Can we agree privately?	Yes, but homologate it (CPC art. 725, VIII) or the old order survives
Do I need to travel?	Usually not — POA, apostille, sworn translation, videoconference

Key terms

• Ação revisional de alimentos — modification action (increase or reduction).
• Ação de exoneração — action to end the support obligation.
• Homologação — court approval that turns an agreement into an enforceable order.
• Irrepetibilidade — the rule that support paid is not refunded.
• Tutela de urgência — provisional relief.
• Binômio / trinômio — the need-ability(-proportionality) test.

Key takeaways

• Moving changes nothing by itself. A Brazilian support order is revised only through a modification or exoneration action, or a homologated agreement (CC art. 1.699; Lei 5.478/68, arts. 13 and 15).
• File in Brazil when the child is in Brazil. CPC arts. 22, I, and 53, II, and Hague 2007 art. 18 make the child’s forum the modification forum.
• Prove the change, not the move. Document income, costs, and the child’s needs “then” and “now”; apostille and sworn-translate everything foreign.
• Time is money in both directions. Effects run from service; paid support is never refunded; unpaid support becomes enforceable arrears.
• Currency deserves structure: fixed sums in reais with an index, or percentages with floors and ceilings, beat raw percentages of a foreign salary.
• Majority is not the end, and 24 is not a rule. Súmula 358 requires a judicial decision with the child heard; the STJ’s line is a relative presumption of need while the child is in higher or technical education, discharged on graduation.
• Agree if you can, homologate if you agree. A cross-border agreement can solve currency, payment, and review problems no judgment will address.

Related guides on this site

• Child support in Brazil: calculation and enforcement
• Child support when the paying parent is in Brazil: enforcement routes from abroad
• International divorce in Brazil: jurisdiction and assets
• Child custody in international marriages in Brazil
• International child abduction and the Hague Convention
• International money transfers to and from Brazil

How ZS Advogados can help

A modification case with a parent abroad is won on preparation: the original order’s basis must be pulled from the old file; the foreign financial picture must be made Brazilian through apostille and sworn translation; the structure proposed to the court — fixed sum, index, floor and ceiling, direct payment of expenses — must survive currency movement; and the sequence of filing, service, and provisional relief must be planned so that delay does not silently transfer money from one parent to the other. Where the parents can agree, a homologated cross-border agreement is almost always the better instrument.

Our team represents paying and receiving parents in modification, exoneration, and consensual restructuring of Brazilian support orders, entirely from abroad where the facts allow — including the power of attorney, the evidence file, mediation, homologation, and the interaction with Hague 2007 central authorities when the other parent is in another Contracting State. We work in English and Portuguese. Read more about our cross-border family law practice.

• Family law — modification, exoneration, custody, and homologated agreements
• International law — Hague 2007 applications, recognition of foreign decisions, foreign documents, and remote representation
• Civil litigation — provisional relief, enforcement defense, and asset questions before Brazilian courts
• Child support enforcement in Brazil — the service page for support, modification, and enforcement matters

Book a consultation to have the order, the evidence, and the proposed structure reviewed before you file or sign.

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

• Lei nº 10.406/2002 — Código Civil (arts. 1.694–1.710, esp. 1.699, 1.707, 1.708) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 5.478/1968 — Lei de Alimentos (arts. 13, §2º, and 15) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 13.105/2015 — Código de Processo Civil (arts. 21–22, 53, 105, 178, 236, 300, 334, 528–533, 725, 960–965) (Planalto)
• Decreto nº 9.176/2017 — 2007 Hague Child Support Convention and Protocol (arts. 10, 18) (Planalto)
• Decreto nº 8.660/2016 — 1961 Hague Apostille Convention (Planalto)
• Lei nº 13.140/2015 — mediation (Planalto)
• Lei nº 14.286/2021 — foreign-exchange market; art. 13 on foreign-currency stipulation; repeals Decreto-Lei 857/1969 (Planalto)
• STJ Súmula 358 — cancellation of support on majority requires a judicial decision (stj.jus.br)
• STJ — “Até quando vai a obrigação de alimentar?” on adult children, education and graduation (stj.jus.br)
• Constituição Federal — art. 229 (Planalto)
• Ministério da Justiça — Convenção da Haia sobre Alimentos (DRCI as central authority) (gov.br)
• HCCH — 2007 Child Support Convention: status table (hcch.net)

---

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 courts, foreign tax systems, and foreign procedure are factual context only and not advice on any foreign law. Case law on adult-child support, currency structures, and extrajudicial procedures evolves; 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.