Enforcing Child Support When the Other Parent Is in Brazil (and From Brazil Abroad)

Three routes, one goal

A child-support order is only as good as the tools available where the paying parent lives, works and holds assets. When that parent is in Brazil, the question is how to reach Brazilian enforcement machinery from abroad; when the child is in Brazil and the paying parent has left, the question is the reverse. Brazil takes part in the main international instruments for maintenance recovery and has strong domestic enforcement tools once there is an enforceable title. The work is in choosing and combining the routes.

There are three ways to reach a Brazilian enforcement measure from abroad:

1. The Convention routes, through Central Authorities, at no cost to the creditor: the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, in force in Brazil through Decreto 9.176/2017, and the older 1956 United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (the New York Convention), in force through Decreto 56.826/1965.
2. Recognition and enforcement of the foreign order through private counsel: STJ homologation under CPC Articles 960 to 965, followed by execution.
3. A direct action in a Brazilian family court asking it to fix, revise or enforce support under Brazilian law where it has jurisdiction under CPC Article 22.

These are not mutually exclusive. A creditor can file through the Central Authority and, in parallel, retain a Brazilian attorney to locate assets, request urgent measures and monitor the case. This page walks through each route, then the enforcement tools themselves, then the reverse direction and revision.

“The Convention channel is free and it works, but it is a pipeline, not a lawyer. Where the debtor is easy to find and formally employed, it may be all you need. Where income is hidden or the debtor keeps moving, someone has to be actively looking on the Brazilian side.” — Zachariah Zagol, Founding Partner, OAB/SP 351.356

For the divorce context in which most support disputes arise, see binational divorce in Brazil. For custody, see cross-border custody.

Route 1: the 2007 Hague Maintenance Convention

The 2007 Convention is the modern instrument. It covers child support (for children under 21, with a reservation option to limit this to 18) and, between States that so declare, spousal maintenance. It obliges each State to designate a Central Authority, to provide free legal assistance in child-support cases, and to recognise and enforce decisions from other Contracting States on a simplified basis.

Who is in it

The United States has applied the Convention since 2017. The European Union (except Denmark) joined in 2014, so it applies between Brazil and EU member states. The United Kingdom is a party in its own right after leaving the EU. Other parties include Canada (for designated provinces), Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and several Latin American states. Membership changes, and so do the declarations and reservations individual States have made, which alter what the Convention actually delivers between any given pair of countries. The authoritative source is the HCCH’s own status table for the 2007 Convention, and it should be checked for the specific country before a route is chosen, not assumed from a list written earlier.

Brazil’s Central Authority

Article 4 of the Convention requires each Contracting State to designate a Central Authority and to notify that designation to the HCCH Permanent Bureau, and Article 6, §3 allows the Authority’s functions to be discharged by public bodies under its supervision. In Brazil the Central Authority function for international legal cooperation sits within the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, and is exercised by its Departamento de Recuperação de Ativos e Cooperação Jurídica Internacional (DRCI). Because designations can be changed and are re-notified when they are, the current designation for Brazil should be read from the HCCH’s authorities page for the Convention before an application is transmitted.

The representation is free, and that is a treaty obligation rather than a courtesy. Article 15, §1 requires the Requested State to provide free legal assistance for any maintenance application made under the Convention’s Chapter III in respect of a person under 21 where the claim arises from a parent-child relationship. Article 8, §1 adds that each Central Authority bears its own costs. There is a narrow qualification in Article 15, §2: for applications outside Article 10, §1(a) and (b), the Requested State may refuse free assistance if it considers the claim or the appeal manifestly unfounded. In practice the file is channelled to the Brazilian public body that will act for the creditor; the creditor abroad does not pay for that representation.

What can be requested

Under the Convention, a creditor can ask Brazil to:

• Recognise and enforce an existing decision from the creditor’s State;
• Enforce a decision already recognised in Brazil;
• Establish a decision in Brazil where none exists, including establishing parentage where necessary;
• Modify a decision, in either direction, within the limits the Convention sets on where modification may be sought.

A debtor can also use the Convention, for instance to seek recognition of a decision that suspends or limits enforcement, or to seek modification.

How an incoming application proceeds

1. The creditor files the application with the Central Authority of his or her own State, on the Convention forms, with the decision, a statement of arrears, proof of service in the original proceeding and any information on the debtor’s whereabouts and employer in Brazil.
2. That authority transmits the file to the DRCI, which acknowledges receipt within the Convention’s time limits and reports on progress.
3. The DRCI checks the file and refers it to the public body that will act in Brazil.
4. Recognition then follows Brazilian procedure, because the Convention says it must: Article 23, §1 provides that “os procedimentos para reconhecimento e execução serão regidos pela lei do Estado Requerido”. Under Brazilian law the recognition of a foreign judgment is reserved to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Constitution, Article 105, I, “i”), and the Code of Civil Procedure makes a foreign decision effective only after homologation “salvo disposição em sentido contrário de lei ou tratado” (CPC, art. 961). What the Convention does change is the content of the examination and the shape of the challenge. Article 22 sets out an exhaustive list of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement, and Article 20 the bases on which a decision qualifies — of which Brazil has excluded one, having entered a reservation to Article 20, §1(e), the basis founded on the parties’ written agreement on jurisdiction. Article 23, §4 provides that at the declaration or registration stage the grounds are narrower still and neither party makes submissions. Article 23, §6 sets the appeal window: 30 days from notification, extended to 60 days where the appellant does not reside in the Contracting State in which the declaration or registration was made or refused. For a creditor living abroad, that 60-day figure is the one to diary.
5. Once recognised, the decision is enforced in Brazil with the full domestic toolset described below.

Where the creditor asks Brazil to establish a decision rather than recognise one, the case is filed in a Brazilian family court on the merits and decided under Brazilian law on needs and means.

Route 2: the 1956 New York Convention

The New York Convention is older and thinner. It creates a channel between “Transmitting Agencies” and “Receiving Agencies” so that a creditor can have a claim pursued abroad without travelling, but it does not itself provide for recognition of foreign decisions; the receiving State applies its own law to what happens next.

In Brazil the Convention was implemented alongside the Maintenance Act, Lei 5.478/1968, whose Article 26 designates the Procuradoria-Geral da República (the Federal Prosecutor General’s Office, part of the Ministério Público Federal) as the Brazilian agency for incoming and outgoing New York Convention cases. Incoming claims are handled by federal prosecutors in the region where the debtor lives, who may act to establish support under Brazilian law or to seek recognition and enforcement of a foreign decision.

The New York route remains relevant for countries that never joined the 2007 Convention, and for cases that began before the newer instrument applied between the two States. Between States that are both party to the 2007 Convention, the newer instrument generally governs. Brazil is also party to the Inter-American Convention on Support Obligations (Montevideo, 15 July 1989), promulgated by Decreto 2.428/1997 and in force for Brazil since 11 August 1997, which can apply to cases involving other American States that ratified it. Where more than one instrument is available for the same pair of countries, the choice is a tactical one and is made at the outset.

Route 3: direct action in Brazil with private counsel

The Convention channels are free but not fast, and they are not designed to chase a debtor who changes address, works informally or moves assets. A creditor can retain a Brazilian attorney and proceed directly, in one of two ways.

Recognising the foreign order and enforcing it

A foreign support decision is homologated at the STJ under CPC Articles 960 to 965 and the STJ’s internal rules. The STJ checks that the decision was issued by a competent authority, that the debtor was properly served or default was lawfully established, that the decision is effective in the country of origin, that it does not offend Brazilian public policy and that it carries a sworn translation (Article 963). Partial homologation is possible (Article 961, §2), which matters when a foreign decision bundles support with matters the STJ will not recognise. Urgent measures can be requested during the homologation (Article 961, §3).

Once homologated, the decision is enforced in the Justiça Federal (Constitution Article 109, X) with the same coercive tools available for a domestic order, including imprisonment. Our page on recognition of foreign divorces in Brazil describes the STJ procedure in more detail; the mechanics are the same for a support decision.

Asking a Brazilian court to fix support directly

Brazilian courts have jurisdiction over a maintenance action when the creditor is domiciled or resident in Brazil, or when the debtor maintains ties with Brazil such as owning property, receiving income or obtaining economic benefits here (CPC Article 22, I). A creditor abroad whose debtor lives and works in Brazil therefore has a Brazilian forum. The action is filed in a state family court under the summary procedure of Lei 5.478/1968 and the Civil Code rules on needs and means (Article 1.694 and following). Provisional support can be fixed at the outset (Lei 5.478/1968, Article 4), giving the creditor an enforceable title within the same proceeding.

This route makes sense when there is no foreign order yet, when the foreign order is difficult to homologate, or when the creditor prefers an amount fixed under Brazilian standards against the debtor’s actual Brazilian income. Its disadvantage is that it opens the merits: the debtor can litigate needs and means, and a Brazilian court may fix an amount different from what a foreign court would.

The enforcement tools once there is a Brazilian title

Brazil treats maintenance debts as a category apart. The tools below apply to a Brazilian support order, a homologated foreign order and, with adaptations, to a support agreement in a public deed or court-approved settlement.

Civil imprisonment (prisão civil)

Brazil’s Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt with one exception: the wilful and inexcusable default of a maintenance obligation (Article 5, LXVII). CPC Article 528 gives the procedure:

• The debtor is summoned personally to, within three days, pay, prove that payment was made, or justify the impossibility of paying.
• If the debtor does not pay and the justification is not accepted, the judge orders the protest of the decision (§1) and may decree imprisonment for one to three months (§3), served in a closed regime, separately from common prisoners (§4).
• Payment releases the debtor immediately (§5). Serving the term does not extinguish the debt (§5), which continues to be enforced against assets.
• Only the three instalments due before the enforcement was filed, and those falling due during the proceeding, can ground imprisonment (§7, codifying STJ Súmula 309). Older arrears are pursued by asset expropriation.
• Non-payment can also be communicated to the prosecutor for the offence of material abandonment (Penal Code Article 244; CPC Article 532).

The threat of imprisonment is credible in Brazil and is the reason many arrears are paid at the three-day summons stage. It is nonetheless a measure of last resort that courts apply after hearing the debtor’s justification, and a debtor who proves genuine incapacity, for example serious illness or documented unemployment, may avoid it while remaining liable for the debt.

Deduction at source

Where the debtor receives a salary, wage, pension or similar income, the judge orders the employer or paying body to deduct the support directly (CPC Article 529). The employer becomes responsible for compliance. Arrears can be added in instalments, together with current support, up to fifty per cent of the debtor’s net earnings (§3). For formally employed debtors this is the most effective tool, which is why identifying the employer, often possible through the debtor’s own social-media or LinkedIn presence, is an early priority.

Protest and credit registers

Protest of the judicial decision (CPC Articles 517 and 528, §1) records the debt at a notary’s protest office, which feeds credit registers. The court can also order the debtor’s inclusion in credit-protection databases (CPC Article 782, §3 and following). For a debtor who runs a business or needs credit, these measures bite quickly.

Asset expropriation

The creditor may choose, instead of or after imprisonment, the ordinary route of seizing assets (CPC Article 528, §8, and Article 530). Brazil’s courts have online systems to freeze bank balances (SISBAJUD, under CPC Article 854), block vehicle transfers (RENAJUD) and obtain tax information (INFOJUD). Real estate can be restrained and sold. Where the debtor’s Brazilian assets are simply unknown, the same registries and cadastres used to locate an estate are used here — property registries, CENSEC, DETRAN, the Junta Comercial and the rural cadastres — and our guide to locating assets in Brazil sets out what each one returns and who may request it. Maintenance credits enjoy preferential treatment in the general limits on what can be seized: amounts that would otherwise be exempt as salary or savings can be reached to satisfy support (CPC Article 833, §2).

Atypical measures under CPC Article 139, IV

Article 139, IV of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the judge power to “determinar todas as medidas indutivas, coercitivas, mandamentais ou sub-rogatórias necessárias para assegurar o cumprimento de ordem judicial, inclusive nas ações que tenham por objeto prestação pecuniária” — expressly including money claims. Courts have used it in maintenance enforcement to suspend a driving licence, retain a passport or block credit cards. The case law is not settled: such measures have been upheld in some cases and set aside in others, and the recurring conditions are that the measure be specifically reasoned, proportionate, actually useful to obtaining payment rather than merely punitive, and adopted after the conventional tools have been tried and failed. They are therefore asked for with a justification tied to what this debtor has done — a documented refusal, a concealed income, a lifestyle inconsistent with the plea of inability — and never as a standard package. Because the position varies between panels and over time, counsel checks the current authority in the relevant court before framing the request.

Interest, indexation and attorney’s fees

Arrears are indexed for inflation and carry interest under the general rules, and the debtor can be ordered to pay the creditor’s attorney’s fees. The exact indexation and interest regime has changed in recent years and is applied by the enforcing court; we describe it case by case rather than here.

The reverse direction: child in Brazil, paying parent abroad

When the child lives in Brazil and the paying parent has moved to, or returned to, another country, the same instruments run outward.

• Getting a Brazilian title. If there is no order yet, a Brazilian family court has jurisdiction because the creditor is domiciled in Brazil (CPC Article 22, I, “a”). The court can fix provisional and final support under Brazilian law, serving the defendant abroad by letters rogatory or under applicable service conventions.
• Transmitting the request. Brazil’s Central Authority (the DRCI for the 2007 Convention; the PGR for the New York Convention) transmits the Brazilian order, or a request to establish support, to the authority of the debtor’s country. In the United States, the case is handled by the state child-support agency where the debtor lives, which has tools such as wage withholding, tax-refund interception and licence suspension under US law; in the United Kingdom, by the REMO unit and the courts. What those authorities can do is a matter of their own law, on which we do not advise.
• Enforcing on Brazilian assets first. If the debtor abroad still owns property, receives rent or holds bank accounts in Brazil, Brazilian enforcement tools reach those assets directly, without waiting for the foreign channel. A Brazilian court can freeze rent payments, restrain real estate and, where the debtor visits Brazil, apply the personal measures above.

The choice between these depends on where the debtor’s income and assets actually are. It is common to pursue Brazilian assets through a Brazilian enforcement action and foreign income through the Convention channel at the same time.

Can a support order be changed when income changes?

Brazilian support is not fixed for life. Civil Code Article 1.694 sets the standard: support is owed in proportion to the needs of the creditor and the resources of the debtor. Article 1.699 allows either party to seek revision, reduction or exoneration when the financial situation of either changes.

Typical cross-border triggers:

• The paying parent relocates and earns in a different currency or at a different level. A Brazilian order expressed as a percentage of income or in reais can be revised to reflect the new reality, in either direction.
• The paying parent loses employment or becomes ill. The order continues to bind until a court alters it, so a debtor in this position should file for revision rather than simply stop paying; unilateral reduction exposes the debtor to enforcement for the full amount.
• The child’s needs change, for example schooling abroad, medical treatment or coming of age.

Reaching 18 does not end support automatically. STJ Súmula 358 requires a proceeding with the child’s participation before exoneration; support commonly continues while the child studies, into the early twenties, subject to proof of need. Exoneration must be sought from the court that has jurisdiction, and a debtor abroad can bring that action in Brazil through counsel with a power of attorney.

Revision actions are decided on evidence of the change, so payslips, tax returns, employment contracts and, for the child, school and medical expenses are the core documents. A revision decision issued in Brazil can then be transmitted abroad under the conventions if enforcement is happening there.

Practical guidance for a creditor abroad

• Locate before you file. The debtor’s address, employer and bank are the difference between a fast enforcement and a slow one. Public records, social media, professional registrations and the debtor’s own family network are the usual sources; a Brazilian attorney can run judicial searches once a case exists.
• Quantify arrears precisely. Prepare a schedule of instalments due, amounts paid and dates, with the currency stated. Brazilian courts will convert and index it; you provide the raw data.
• Have the documents ready. The foreign order, proof of service in the original case, proof of finality, the child’s birth certificate, your identity, and a power of attorney for Brazilian counsel, apostilled and sworn-translated. See apostille and document legalisation and powers of attorney in Brazil.
• Use both channels. File through your Central Authority so the free public representation starts, and instruct private counsel if the debtor is hard to find or the arrears are significant.
• Do not agree informally to reductions without recording them. An informal arrangement is hard to prove either way and can be read as acquiescence. If circumstances warrant a reduction, have it approved by a court or recorded in a proper agreement.

Related pages

• Binational divorce in Brazil: jurisdiction, property division and custody when a marriage spans two countries.
• Recognition of a foreign divorce in Brazil: the STJ homologation procedure that also applies to support decisions.
• Filing a Hague Convention return petition in Brazil.
• Cross-border custody.
• Dividing Brazilian property in a foreign divorce: where support and property are decided in the same foreign decree.
• Locating assets in Brazil: the registries and cadastres an enforcement search uses.
• Cross-border family law landing page: child support · divorce · homologation · custody and abduction.

Sources

• Decreto 9.176/2017 — promulgates the 2007 Hague Maintenance Convention and its Protocol; in force for Brazil since 1 November 2017 (Decreto Legislativo 146/2016), with reservations to Article 20, §1(e) and Article 30, §1 and the declaration under Article 3, §2
• HCCH — 2007 Child Support Convention status table
• Convention articles relied on here: 4 and 6 (Central Authorities), 8 (costs), 10 (available applications), 15 (free legal assistance for under-21 child support), 20 (bases for recognition), 22 (grounds for refusal), 23 (procedure and the 30/60-day appeal window)
• Decreto 2.428/1997 — Inter-American Convention on Support Obligations (Montevideo, 1989)
• Lei 5.478/1968 — Maintenance Act; art. 26 (New York Convention agency)
• Código de Processo Civil (Lei 13.105/2015) — arts. 139, IV; 528; 530; 833, §2; 854; 961
• Constituição Federal, art. 105, I, “i” — STJ competence to recognise foreign judgments

This page is general information about Brazilian law and procedure. It is not legal advice for any specific situation and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We advise only on Brazilian law; enforcement steps in other countries are for counsel admitted there.

ZS Advogados Associados · Zachariah Zagol, OAB/SP 351.356 · Presidente Prudente, SP · zac@zsassociados.com · +55 (18) 3908-1653