 According to Article 12, "The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year [...] shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment," It is the second part of this article that is used as a defence in all Hague disputes in Brazil and one of the reasons why they are held up for so long.Brazilian federal courts routinely accept evidence from Brazilian abducting parents to the effect that the abducted child has become settled in his/her new environment and the U.S. State Department has claimed that Brazilian Courts erroneously treat Hague cases as custody disputes, unnecessarily delaying cases and demonstrating an unfair bias toward Brazilian citizens, especially mothers.In addition to this, Article 13 of the Convention states, “The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order
the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained
an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its
views,” while Article 13(b) states that children should not be returned to their habitual residence if “there is a grave risk that his or her
return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place
the child in an intolerable situation.” Brazilian abducting parents often present evidence to the court in the form of statements from the abducted child to the effect that they wish to stay in Brazil.