 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.A 1999 report by Prof. Nigel Lowe of the Cardiff University Centre for International Family Law Studies in the U.K. raised concerns about children not being returned to their place of habitual residence because of a misunderstanding of what the term 'habitual residence' meant (i.e., rather than referring to restoration of the "status quo ante" the abduction, abducting parents argue that it refers to the "status quo" and they are more likely to be able to argue this point if they can delay the judicial process long enough).