BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: Adriana Chieco, Camila Ieracitano Macedo Maia and Mabel Tucunduva Prieto de Souza, Chieco Advogados
material assistance to ensure the return is completed. However, retaining an attorney allows almost-imme - diate access to the judiciary and can expedite the proceeding. Brazil currently tends to comply with the Convention, and the federal courts have specific rules for this type of lawsuit, aiming to expedite the solution and favour international co-operation (Resolution 449/2022 from the CNJ). Nonetheless, some courts may have a more flexible interpretation of the exception of Article 13 (b) of the Convention and demand some degree of evidence (eg, expert examination) on whether return - ing to the country of habitual residence is in the best interests of the child. In less complex situations, the return can be enforced within a few months of filing the lawsuit, especially when the abduction is recent. In more complex cases with children that have been kept in Brazil for longer periods, a final decision may take longer, even with the court’s frequent remarks recog - nising that time is of the essence in the proceedings. The STF concluded, on 27 August 2025, the judgment of two lawsuits that discussed the constitutionality of several articles of the Hague Convention, at the request of political parties (ADI 4245 and 7686). The first lawsuit’s aim was to supposedly protect Brazilian mothers and children who flee other coun - tries due to vulnerability and domestic violence by demanding a thorough evidentiary phase before the return is allowed or denied. The AGU and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office have opposed the requests and defended the constitutionality of all the articles of the Convention, with dismissal of the claims.
The second lawsuit aimed to establish that the sus - pected existence of domestic violence – even if not directed to the minor – should also be treated as one of the possibilities for exempting the return of minors to their country of habitual residence (exceptions of Article 13 of the Hague Convention). If ruled fully with grounds, those lawsuits might allow a substantially expanded interpretation of the excep - tions of Article 13 of the Convention, making it less effective and/or significantly slowing down the return proceedings. The STF decided that: • the 1980 Hague Convention is compatible with the Federal Constitution; • for the 1980 Hague Convention to be fully applied, it is necessary to ensure that proceedings are expeditious, ideally with a final decision with one year; and • the exception of Article 13 (b) to the general rule of prompt return is also applicable if there is con - crete and objective evidence of the occurrence of domestic violence against one parent, but not against the child. Regarding costs, if a case is filed by the AGU, the procedure is free of charge for the left-behind parent, and the abducting parent can be held responsible for the costs of locating and returning the child. However, if the lawsuit is filed directly by the left-behind parent, the costs must be supported by them. 3.4 Non-Hague Convention Countries Brazil is a signatory to the Hague Convention.
30 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook