International Child Abduction: A Complete Guide to the Hague Convention

Dra. Lais Sampaio

Sep 30

8 min read

Updated: Oct 8

International child abduction occurs when one parent takes a child to another country without the other parent's authorization or, having traveled with authorization, fails to return the child as previously agreed, unlawfully keeping the child abroad and violating the other parent's custody or access rights.

The 21st century has brought with it a defining reality: the growing international mobility of people. In this context of intense cross-border movement, it is only natural that people of different nationalities form relationships, build families, and have children. At the same time, it is equally common for those relationships to end and, eventually, for one parent to relocate with the child to their home country without the other parent's authorization.

Recognizing this reality, the international community drafted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, enacted in Brazil by Decree No. 3,413/2000. The Convention governs the return of a child to their country of habitual residence when wrongfully removed or retained by one of the parents.

In this article, you will learn:

General requirements for the Hague Convention to apply

For the Hague Convention of 1980 to apply to a return request, several general requirements must be met. Broadly speaking, the child must:

have habitual residence in a Contracting State and have been removed to, or retained in, another Contracting State;
be under 16 years of age;
have been in the custody of a parent who, at the time of removal or retention, held custody rights under the law of the State of habitual residence and was actually exercising those rights; and
have been wrongfully removed or retained, that is, in breach of existing custody rights and without the other parent's consent or a judicial authorization legitimizing the child's transfer and/or continued presence in the destination country.

Which countries are party to the Hague Convention?

The first thing a parent should check is whether both countries involved (the country of retention and the country of habitual residence) have not only signed but ratified the Convention. This distinction is essential, since signature alone does not bind a State to comply with the treaty.

Signing an international treaty means the State took part in the negotiations and agrees, in principle, with its content. Ratifying, on the other hand, is the act by which a State formally commits, at the international level, to comply with the treaty.

In Brazil, this process follows a few steps: the treaty is signed by the Executive Branch and then submitted to the National Congress for approval through a Legislative Decree. Once approved, the Executive ratifies the treaty internationally, and the President then issues a Presidential Decree that incorporates the Convention into Brazilian domestic law.

You can check which countries have signed and which have ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction on the HCCH status table. Brazil ratified the Convention in 1999.

How does the process work under the Hague Convention?

The starting point: Central Authorities

The process begins with a request from the parent whose child was wrongfully removed or retained. This request is not addressed directly to the courts of the child's country of habitual residence, but rather to that country's Central Authority, which in turn forwards the return request to the Central Authority of the country where the child is actually located, that is, where the child is being wrongfully retained.

But what exactly are Central Authorities? Each Contracting State, upon ratifying the Hague Convention, designates a Central Authority responsible for receiving, processing, and forwarding return requests. In Brazil, this role is carried out by the Federal Administrative Central Authority (Autoridade Central Administrativa Federal, ACAF), part of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, which handles cooperation requests both from Brazilians whose children were taken abroad and from foreign nationals seeking the return of children brought to Brazil.

So, in a hypothetical scenario where a mother unlawfully brings a child from France to Brazil, the father, who remained in France, could submit a return request to the French Central Authority (the French Ministry of Justice, through its international legal cooperation department), which would then forward the request to ACAF, Brazil's Central Authority.

You can look up each country's Central Authority on the HCCH's official page.

Once the request is received, the Central Authority of the country where the child is located may either reject it or accept it and initiate the procedure.

Attempting conciliation

One of the first steps taken is an attempt at voluntary return. Once the parent who has the child is located, that country's Central Authority contacts them to explore the possibility of reaching an amicable agreement with the requesting parent before any judicial measures are taken.

If the parties reach an agreement, it is typically drafted with the assistance of attorneys and signed by both parties in the presence of two witnesses, becoming an extrajudicial enforcement instrument. In practice, this means that if the agreement is breached, the affected parent does not need to start a new lawsuit to determine whether the child should return; they can go straight to an enforcement action, asking the court to compel compliance with the agreed terms.

Judicial proceedings

If no agreement is reached, judicial proceedings begin. Each country follows its own procedural rules. In Brazil, international return actions based on the Hague Convention are heard by the Federal Courts, under Article 109, III, of the Brazilian Constitution, which establishes federal jurisdiction over cases arising from international treaties entered into by the Union.

A note from Dr. Laís Sampaio, attorney focused on International Law

The Hague Convention does not prevent the requesting parent from filing a lawsuit directly in the country where the child was taken, bypassing the earlier steps of coordination between Central Authorities. Article 29 of the Convention itself allows a parent holding custody or access rights to apply directly to the judicial authorities, "whether or not under the provisions of this Convention."

Although Central Authorities have made efforts to speed up administrative proceedings and reduce bureaucracy, these proceedings can, in practice, take years, widening the emotional and physical distance between parents and the children who were taken.

This is particularly relevant when it comes to deadlines.

A parent whose child was taken has one year to request the child's prompt return. This period runs from the date of wrongful removal or retention until the date proceedings are initiated before the judicial or administrative authority of the country where the child is located.

Example: if a child was wrongfully retained in Brazil on January 10, 2025, the return request must reach the Brazilian authorities before January 10, 2026. If the parent first goes through the administrative process, there will still be a gap between the request being sent by their own country's Central Authority and its actual receipt by ACAF in Brazil, and that gap also counts against the one-year deadline. For this reason, filing a judicial action directly in the country where the child is located can be a safer strategy for preserving the deadline, avoiding the extra time consumed by the process between Central Authorities.

What happens if the one-year deadline is missed?

A court may still order the return of a wrongfully retained child, except where it is proven that the child is already settled in their new environment. This can reduce the likelihood of the return request succeeding.

Exceptions to return

Certain factors can lead to a return request being denied, even where the removal or retention is found to be wrongful.

Grave risk to the child. Article 13 of the Convention provides that a State may refuse to order a child's return where there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. Domestic violence cases fall squarely within this exception.

In a ruling issued in August 2025, Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) held that this exception applies even where the domestic violence was directed solely at the parent who has the child (in most cases, the mother) rather than at the child directly. You can read the official ruling here.

Child's objection. Another exception applies when the child or adolescent objects to returning. For this objection to be taken into account by the court, however, the child must have attained an age and degree of maturity that make it appropriate to consider their views. The Convention does not set a specific minimum age for this assessment; it is up to the court, in each case, to determine whether the child has sufficient discernment to form and express their own view on the return, rather than simply repeating what they heard from one of the parents.

Custody not actually exercised, or consent by the requesting parent. Authorities in the country where the child is located may also refuse the return where it is shown that the requesting parent was not actually exercising custody at the time of the removal or retention, or where that parent later consented to or acquiesced in the child's relocation or continued presence abroad.

Settlement in the new environment. If a return request is filed more than a year after the wrongful removal or retention, the court may also deny the return, provided it is clearly shown that the child is already settled in their new environment: new school, new social and emotional ties, an established routine. This exception is directly tied to the one-year deadline discussed above: the more time passes without a request being filed, the more likely the child is already settled into the new environment, and the more weight this argument carries in the court's decision. Hence the importance of acting quickly.

Is International Child Abduction a Crime?

Not inherently. Proceedings under the Hague Convention are civil in nature, not criminal. The Convention's purpose is to secure the child's return to their country of habitual residence, so that any dispute over custody, visitation, child support, and related matters can be decided by the competent court under local law. In fact, if custody proceedings are already underway in the country where the child is being retained, they must be stayed until it is determined, under the Convention, whether the child should return to their country of origin.

This does not mean, however, that criminal proceedings cannot be brought in parallel against the parent who retained the child, under the law of the child's country of habitual residence, as happens in the United States under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act de 1993 (IPKCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1204 (a provision that remains debated among international law scholars, as it may discourage voluntary return and consensual solutions).

Frequently asked questions

Is it a crime to take a child abroad without the other parent's authorization?

It can raise both a civil issue under the Hague Convention and a criminal one, depending on the applicable law and the circumstances. The two are analyzed separately.

Does the Hague Convention apply to every country?

No. It only applies between countries that have ratified the Convention.

Can the child be heard by the judge?

Yes. Depending on the child's age and maturity, their views may be considered relevant to the court's decision.

Does domestic violence prevent a child's return?

It may be recognized as a grave risk to the child, one of the exceptions under the Convention, including where the victim is only the parent who has the child.

If the child has lived in Brazil for years, can they still be returned?

It depends. The more time that has passed and the more settled the child is, the more weight that argument carries in the court's decision, but there is no automatic rule.

Final considerations

International child abduction cases involve urgency, emotional sensitivity, and legal complexity across more than one jurisdiction, all at once. Every case has particularities that go beyond what this guide can cover, both for parents seeking their child's return and for those who need to defend against a return request.

If you are dealing with a situation like this, it is advisable to contact an attorney you trust who focuses on International Law. This is the professional best positioned to help you understand your rights, the legal avenues available, and the steps that can be taken to protect the interests of the child and the family.

This content is for informational purposes only and does not replace individualized legal advice.

About the author