BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: Mauricio Ejchel, MF Ejchel International Family Law
unverified facts tends to defeat the application. Equal - ly important is the effect on the child’s relationship with the left-behind parent, and here the judge weighs distance, time zones, school holidays, flight connec - tions, cost and the child’s capacity to travel, treating remote contact as a supplement to time in person rather than a replacement for it. A parent who has complied with previous court orders and encouraged the child’s relationship with the other parent presents a more credible case. Allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, neglect, substance misuse or parental alienation are examined on the evidence. Under Law 14,713/2023, a credible risk of domestic or family violence is itself a statutory ground for not imposing shared custody automatically. The legal system of the destination country, its treaty links with Brazil and its practical capacity to give effect to the arrangements also mat - ter, particularly where future contact would otherwise depend on the goodwill of the relocating parent alone. No single element is decisive, and the court compares the child’s realistic prospects if the move is permitted with those if it is refused, including the effect of each outcome on the household responsible for the child’s daily care. 2.3.2 Wishes and Feelings of the Child A child has the right to be heard, but not a general right to decide the move. Article 12 of the UN Conven - tion on the Rights of the Child and the participation rules in Article 100 of the Child and Adolescent Statute require the child’s views to be sought and weighed according to age, maturity and circumstances. The method matters. The judge may hear the child directly or, more often in a sensitive dispute, through a psychologist, social worker or specialist interview. The process should suit the child’s age, avoid repeated questioning and separate the child’s own experience from pressure, loyalty conflict, fear of upsetting a par - ent or rehearsed words. How much the view counts depends on how inde - pendent, consistent and reasoned it is, and how closely it connects to the child’s welfare. A prefer - ence grounded in school, friendships, language or a real relationship can be helpful, while a bare choice
between parents is less useful and can place an unfair burden on the child. The court must show how it con - sidered the view, but may still decide otherwise where protection, stability or another strong welfare factor requires it. 2.3.3 Age/Maturity of the Child Brazilian law fixes no age at which a child’s preference settles a relocation. Age matters because thinking ability, emotional independence and understanding of long-term consequences usually grow over time, yet age and maturity are not the same thing. A young child’s position is often assessed through attachment, routine, behaviour and professional observation rather than words. A school-age child’s stated wishes receive more attention when they are coherent and rooted in real experience. The informed, independent view of an older teenager can carry real practical weight, especially where forcing the outcome would be harmful or unrealistic, but it stays part of the best-interests assessment rather than a formal veto. The court will also ask whether the child grasps that the move is permanent and understands the proposed contact, the change of language and school, and the difference between enjoying visits and actually living in the new country. Signs of undue influence reduce the weight of the child’s stated preference at any age. 2.3.4 Importance of Keeping Children Together Keeping siblings together is a strong welfare factor, because the bond between them can give continuity, identity and emotional security while a family sepa - rates and a move takes place. The court looks at full, half and socio-affective sibling relationships as they are actually lived, not only at formal parentage. There is no absolute rule that siblings must always share one home. Different ages, needs, attachments, care histories, safety concerns or firmly held views may justify different arrangements. Even so, the court should ask whether separating them is truly neces - sary, how the bond will be protected and whether the plan offers realistic contact in person and remotely. An application that would split a closely bonded set of siblings therefore needs clear evidence showing
28 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook