When a parent takes or retains a child in a country other than the child's habitual residence without the other parent's consent or judicial authorization, this constitutes a wrongful removal or retention under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Argentina has been a party to the Convention since 1991 (Law 23.857) and is also party to the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children.
The Convention's objective is to quickly restore the situation that existed before the removal: the child must return to the State of habitual residence, where substantive issues (custody, visitation, support) will be decided. The return procedure does not decide custody — it only decides where custody will be decided. This distinction is fundamental and is often misunderstood by the parties.
We assist both the parent seeking return (whose child was brought to Argentina) and the parent defending against the return request (who brought the child to Argentina and faces the other parent's claim).
The Argentine Central Authority is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship. Applications may be submitted through diplomatic channels (central authority to central authority) or directly before the competent family court.
The procedure is urgent: the Convention sets a six-week guideline for resolution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that urgency is essential and that procedural delays are contrary to the best interests of the child.
The Convention provides an exhaustive list of grounds for refusing return, all interpreted restrictively: (a) the applicant was not actually exercising custody rights or consented to the removal; (b) there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or place the child in an intolerable situation; (c) the child's own objections when of sufficient age and maturity; (d) the child's integration into the new environment when the application is filed more than a year after removal and integration is genuine.
The grave risk exception is the most frequently invoked and the most delicate. Argentine and international case law requires compelling evidence, not mere assertions.
We handle numerous cases involving families with connections to Russia, Ukraine, Spain, Italy and other European countries. Correctly identifying the child's habitual residence (which does not always correspond to nationality or place of birth) is the first technical task.
Removals frequently occur when divorce or custody disputes are already underway. Analysis of the judicial measures in effect in the State of habitual residence at the time of removal is decisive.
When the abducting parent claims to have fled from violence, the court must assess whether that violence constitutes a grave risk under the Convention. This is a delicate intersection requiring serious evidence and, frequently, mirror measures in the requesting State to ensure safe return.