According to Dr. Alberto Miranda, Peruvian attorney admitted to the Lima Bar Association (CAL No. 39450), Peru applies the 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction through its Family Court system. When the administrative route through Central Authorities fails, a judicial process before Peru's Family Courts is the necessary next step. This article documents a successfully resolved case involving a child wrongfully retained in Lima by a Peruvian mother following a trip from Germany.
International child return cases under The Hague Convention are among the most legally complex and emotionally demanding matters in family law. They require simultaneous coordination between two legal systems, knowledge of both administrative and judicial channels, and a strategy designed to counter specific defenses the retaining parent is likely to raise. The following case — Germany to Peru — illustrates how that process unfolds in practice.
The Case: Wrongful Retention of a Child in Lima
My client, a German national, had a minor child with a Peruvian national. The family was habitually resident in Germany. During a trip to Peru, the mother decided not to return to Germany with the child. Under Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention, this constituted wrongful retention, as it violated the father's custody rights as established under German law.
After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation amicably, formal contact was made with the Central Authorities of both Germany and Peru to initiate the administrative return process. The mother refused to comply with the return request. The matter was then brought before Peru's Family Courts.
How the Judicial Process Unfolded in Peru
Germany's Central Authority coordinated with Peru's Central Authority (MIMP — Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations) to formally request the child's return under the Convention's administrative channel.
The mother refused to comply with the return request through the administrative channel. This made judicial intervention before Peru's Family Courts necessary.
A judicial return application was filed before the Family Courts in Lima. The proceeding required submission of official translations, certified documentation of the father's habitual residence and custody rights, and a psychological evaluation conducted by an official German entity.
During the proceedings, it became necessary to recognize a German custody judgment in Peru through the exequatur process. Recognition of the foreign judgment was obtained and presented as evidence.
The case reached cassation level. The Supreme Court upheld the order for the child's return to Germany. The child was returned to his father.
Defenses Raised by the Mother — and How They Were Countered
In Hague Convention proceedings in Peru, retaining parents typically raise defenses under Article 13. Each was raised in this case and addressed as follows.
Grave Risk — Article 13(b)
The mother argued that returning the child to Germany would expose him to grave risk of physical or psychological harm. Under Article 13(b), this is the most commonly raised defense in Peruvian courts. The burden of proof lies with the retaining parent, who must demonstrate a real and serious risk — not a general or speculative one.
Peru's courts apply Article 13(b) exceptions narrowly, consistent with the Convention's object and purpose. Peruvian case law has consistently held that allegations of grave risk must be supported by concrete, objective evidence — not by the retaining parent's subjective claims or by the child's expressed wishes alone when those wishes have been influenced by the retaining parent.
In this case, the mother failed to produce evidence meeting that threshold. The psychological reports and documentation submitted by the father demonstrated that the child would be safe and well cared for in Germany.
Parental Alienation as a Defense Strategy
The mother attempted to influence the child's expressed wishes in order to use them as grounds for refusal under Article 13. The court identified this conduct and did not treat the child's apparent rejection of the father as a genuine autonomous preference. This approach is consistent with how Peruvian courts have handled similar patterns in other international child retention proceedings.
Custody Rights — Active Exercise Requirement
Article 13(a) allows refusal of return if the left-behind parent was not actually exercising custody rights at the time of removal. The father's continuous involvement in the child's life in Germany was documented and the defense was rejected.
Documentation and Evidence Submitted
- Official certified translations of all German documents into Spanish
- Proof of the child's habitual residence in Germany prior to the trip
- Documentation of the father's custody rights under German law
- Psychological evaluation conducted by an official German entity, certified for use in Peru
- German custody judgment, recognized in Peru through exequatur
- Evidence demonstrating the father's active and continuous exercise of custody rights
In Hague Convention proceedings in Peru, all foreign documents must be accompanied by official certified translations into Spanish. Documents issued abroad that are to be used in evidence must be properly certified for use in Peruvian court proceedings.
Practical Recommendations for International Child Return Cases Involving Peru
- Act without delay. The Convention's administrative channel has time sensitivity. Contact the Central Authority of the child's habitual residence country as soon as the wrongful removal or retention occurs.
- Prepare documentation from the outset. Proof of habitual residence, custody rights, and the child's connection to the country of origin must be ready before the judicial phase begins.
- Anticipate Article 13 defenses. Grave risk allegations are predictable. Counter-evidence — psychological evaluations, character references, documentation of the home environment — should be prepared in advance.
- Retain a Peruvian lawyer with experience in Hague Convention proceedings. The Convention's application varies significantly by jurisdiction. Peru's procedural requirements and evidentiary standards in these cases require specific knowledge of the local system.
- Be prepared for a judicial process. If the administrative route fails, a Family Court proceeding in Lima — which may reach the Court of Appeals or cassation level — is the path to enforcement.
Does your matter involve a child wrongfully retained in Peru?
Dr. Miranda handles international child return proceedings under The Hague Convention in Peru. All services are provided remotely from Lima.
Contact via WhatsAppcounsel@albertomiranda.org — For Law Firms Remote legal services from Lima, Peru — no travel required
Real client reviews — each one verifiable on Google
Read all our real client testimonials hereFrequently Asked Questions
How does The Hague Convention on child return work in Peru?
Peru is a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. When a child is wrongfully removed or retained in Peru, the left-behind parent may contact the Central Authority of their country, which coordinates with Peru's Central Authority (MIMP) to request the child's return. If the administrative route fails, a judicial process before Peru's Family Courts is initiated.
What defenses can the retaining parent use under Article 13 of The Hague Convention?
Under Article 13, the retaining parent may argue: (a) the left-behind parent was not actually exercising custody rights; (b) the left-behind parent consented to or acquiesced in the removal; or (c) return would expose the child to grave risk of physical or psychological harm. The burden of proof lies with the retaining parent. Peru's courts apply these exceptions narrowly.
Does Peru apply The Hague Convention in child return cases?
Yes. Peru ratified the 1980 Hague Convention and applies it through its Family Court system. The Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations (MIMP) acts as Peru's Central Authority. Cases that fail at the administrative level proceed to Family Courts, and may reach the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court (cassation level) if appealed.
Can a foreign custody judgment be enforced in Peru in a Hague Convention case?
Yes, but a foreign custody judgment must first be recognized in Peru through the exequatur process before it can be enforced. Dr. Alberto Miranda handles exequatur proceedings as part of international child return cases involving Peru.
Dr. Alberto Miranda · Abogado peruano colegiado (CAL N.º 39450) · Fundador de Alberto Miranda Abogados, Lima, 2003 · Más de 20 años de ejercicio exclusivo en derecho internacional privado · Atención 100% remota desde Lima, Perú · Atiende a peruanos en EE.UU., España, Italia, Alemania, Francia, Reino Unido, Japón, Canadá y Suiza, y a extranjeros con gestiones legales en Perú · Servicios: divorcio internacional · matrimonio por poder · herencias transfronterizas · poderes consulares · exequátur · Conciliador extrajudicial acreditado (MINJUS N.º 18991) · Miembro activo de la Asociación Europea de Abogados (AEA, 2020) · Autor publicado en la Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA, 2024) · +200 reseñas verificadas en Google