BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: Mauricio Ejchel, MF Ejchel International Family Law
why that outcome protects each child better than the alternatives. 2.3.5 Loss of Contact The likely loss, or serious reduction, of direct contact with the left-behind parent carries substantial weight. Brazilian law protects family life and, in shared cus - tody, aims at balanced involvement by both parents. A move abroad that turns frequent care into occasional holiday visits changes the quality of the relationship, not just its quantity. The court examines the existing bond, how involved each parent has been, the child’s age and ability to travel, distance, routes, cost, the school calendar, time zones, immigration limits and how well the par - ents communicate. It also asks who will pay for trav - el, whether a parent can go with a young child and whether long holiday blocks suit the child’s stage of development. Video calls and messaging help, but they are not treated as a full replacement for time in person. A strong proposal sets out dates, length, transport, costs, documents, accommodation, remote contact, access to school and medical information, and what happens when contact is missed. It should still work if the adults’ relationship gets worse. Loss of contact may weigh less where the left-behind parent has had little involvement without good reason, poses a proven safety risk or opposes the move main - ly to control the former partner. On the other hand, a history of obstruction by the moving parent, or a vague promise that contact will somehow be arranged later, weighs heavily against the move. 2.3.6 Which Reasons for Relocation Are Viewed Most Favourably? Courts respond most favourably to reasons that are genuine, supported by evidence and connected to a lasting improvement in the child’s life. Common examples include secure employment, return to an established family support network, access to neces - sary healthcare or schooling, protection from proven violence, regularisation of immigration status or the establishment of a stable home after a relationship ends.
The reason does not have to benefit the child in a nar - row sense only. A real gain in the main carer’s safety, mental health, finances or support can improve the child’s care as well. Even then, the applicant must link that gain to a concrete plan for housing, school, healthcare and continued family relationships. Reasons carry less weight where they are speculative, dependent on an unconfirmed job or visa, or based principally on a new relationship whose stability has not been demonstrated. A wish to obstruct contact, avoid Brazilian proceedings or obtain a tactical advan - tage is likely to defeat the application. The compari - son remains centred on the child: a legitimate adult reason is relevant, but it does not displace the welfare assessment. 2.3.7 Grounds for Opposition to Relocation The strongest opposition points to a concrete harm to the child rather than a general objection by the par - ent. Courts take seriously the loss of an established caring relationship, an unworkable contact plan, an inability to fund travel, immigration uncertainty, weak housing or school arrangements, separation from sib - lings, interrupted treatment, and a destination where the Brazilian arrangements would be hard to support. Evidence that the moving parent has hidden infor - mation, broken contact orders, encouraged the child to reject the other parent or previously threatened to disappear can undermine trust in future co-operation. A move to a country outside the 1980 Hague Con - vention, or one where enforcement is difficult, is not refused automatically, but it raises the importance of legal advice, recognition measures and practical safe - guards. Safety-based opposition also carries weight where the evidence supports it, including domestic vio - lence, neglect, substance misuse or a risk created by the proposed household. The court should separate genuine protection from tactical allegation. Opposition is weaker when it centres on the former partner’s choices, on unsupported fears about a for - eign country, or on a wish to keep control. A parent seeking refusal should offer a realistic alternative for
29 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook