Practitioners — Brazil — Therapists¶

Jurisdictional context¶

Brazil is the only world jurisdiction with substantive PA-statute codifying alienating conduct as actionable: Lei 12.318/2010 (Lei da Alienação Parental) art. 2 'considera-se ato de alienação parental a interferência na formação psicológica da criança ou do adolescente promovida ou induzida por um dos genitores'. STF ADI 6273/2019 challenging the statute was dismissed on standing without substantive ruling. STJ apex line includes REsp 1859228/SP (Min. Nancy Andrighi, 2024) + REsp 2108750/GO (2024) on procedural application of Lei 12.318/2010 in family courts. The institutional critique pole is anchored by CFP (Conselho Federal de Psicologia) Nota Técnica 4/2022 explicitly rejecting AP-as-construct + CFESS (Conselho Federal de Serviço Social) parallel position. IBDFAM (Instituto Brasileiro de Direito de Família) is the load-bearing legal-academic anchor on family law including AP doctrine. Brazil is unique among LATAM5 jurisdictions for having ROUGHLY EQUAL institutional weight at both poles: statutory recognition (Lei 12.318/2010) + STJ apex recognition line vs CFP+CFESS professional-association critique. Cross-link: jurisdiction:brazil. NB: this file is a focused v1.0 entry capturing the load-bearing Brazilian institutional regulators referenced from case studies; deeper individual-clinician deepening pending.

Structural findings¶

BRAZIL IS THE WORLD'S ONLY STATUTORY PA-RECOGNITION JURISDICTION: Lei 12.318/2010 art. 2 codifies alienating conduct as legally actionable. STF ADI 6273/2019 dismissed on standing without substantive constitutional ruling on the statute. STJ REsp 1859228/SP (Nancy Andrighi 2024) + REsp 2108750/GO (2024) define procedural application. Distinct from Spain (LOPIVI 2021 Disp. ad. 17ª — only world statutory PA-inadmission jurisdiction, opposite direction).
PROFESSIONAL-ASSOCIATION CRITIQUE-CAMP DENSITY UNIQUE IN LATAM5: CFP Nota Técnica 4/2022 + CFESS parallel position constitute the BRAZILIAN INSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE ANCHOR. Brazil is the only LATAM jurisdiction where the institutional critique pole AND the clinical recognition pole are ROUGHLY EQUAL in institutional weight. Distinct from Chile (CdPCh silent; rechazo via Cámara+Ejecutivo+ANMM) + Mexico (SMP silent; doctrine via SCJN AI 11/2016) + Colombia (COLPSIC 2017→2023 pivot; 5-authority coalition T-526/2023) + Argentina (FePRA + 7 provincial colegios; no statutory recognition).
IBDFAM AS LEGAL-ACADEMIC ANCHOR: Instituto Brasileiro de Direito de Família is the load-bearing Brazilian legal-academic association on family law, including the AP doctrine. IBDFAM positions inform STJ case-law engagement with Lei 12.318/2010 + Constitution 1988 art. 227 (children's-rights paramountcy).
STJ NANCY ANDRIGHI AS LOAD-BEARING JUDICIAL FIGURE: Ministra Nancy Andrighi (STJ Third Section) is the author of multiple leading STJ decisions on Lei 12.318/2010 application including REsp 1859228/SP (2024). Functionally analogous to Debbie Ong J (Singapore TEN v TEO) or Lord Stuart (Scotland NF v AF) as a single judicial author shaping a national PA-construct apex jurisprudence.
FOCUSED V1.0 ENTRY ⟶ DEEPER INDIVIDUAL-CLINICIAN DEEPENING PENDING: This file captures the load-bearing Brazilian institutional regulators referenced from existing case studies and cross-link refs (stj-resp-1859228-sp-2024 + stj-resp-2108750-go-2024 cite practitioner:br.cfp + br.cfess + br.ibdfam). Individual recognition-camp clinicians (Caetano Lagrasta, Glicia Brazil, Denise Maria Perissini da Silva, Eveline Fülber) and critique-camp clinicians remain in legacy v1.0 brazil.md until per-clinician v2 deepening completes.

Critique camp¶

Conselho Federal de Psicologia (CFP)¶

Statutory federal regulator of psychology in Brazil under Lei 5.766/1971; coordinating body of 24 Conselhos Regionais de Psicologia (CRPs); statutory psychology licensure Brasília · Distrito Federal · Conselho Federal de Psicologia — federal statutory psychology regulator

Stance: INSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE-CAMP ANCHOR for Brazilian PA-adjacent landscape. CFP NOTA TÉCNICA 4/2022 explicitly rejects the parental-alienation construct as a clinical category and warns psychologists against deploying SAP/PA-construct in family-court evaluations. The Nota Técnica 4/2022 is the principal Brazilian regulator-level critique-camp document and is regularly cited by Brazilian family-court advocacy challenging Lei 12.318/2010-grounded reasoning. CFP position is distinct from STJ apex line (REsp 1859228/SP + REsp 2108750/GO 2024 procedural-application recognition) — Brazil is the only LATAM5 jurisdiction where critique and recognition poles operate at roughly equal institutional weight.

Publications: - Nota Técnica nº 4/2022 — Alienação Parental (2022) — Conselho Federal de Psicologia — https://site.cfp.org.br/

Verification: - https://site.cfp.org.br/ - https://site.cfp.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/

Contact: via site.cfp.org.br

Notes: CFP is the federal statutory psychology regulator under Lei 5.766/1971 — psychology licensure in Brazil requires CFP/CRP registration. Nota Técnica 4/2022 verified via cfp.org.br institutional publication.

See also: jurisdiction:brazil, case-study:stj-resp-1859228-sp-2024, case-study:stj-resp-2108750-go-2024

_{ID: br.cfp}

Statutory federal regulator of social work in Brazil under Lei 8.662/1993; coordinating body of 27 Conselhos Regionais de Serviço Social (CRESS); statutory social work licensure Brasília · Distrito Federal · Conselho Federal de Serviço Social — federal statutory social work regulator

Stance: PARALLEL INSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE-CAMP ANCHOR to CFP. CFESS has issued institutional positions parallel to CFP NT 4/2022 questioning the PA-construct deployment in family-court contexts — particularly in cases where alienating-construct framing risks obscuring underlying domestic violence dynamics. CFESS-registered social workers act as forensic assessors and técnicos in Brazilian family-court proceedings under Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (ECA, Lei 8.069/1990) — CFESS institutional position constrains regulated practice. Joint CFP+CFESS pole is the principal Brazilian regulator-level critique anchor against Lei 12.318/2010 application.

Publications: - CFESS institutional position on Alienação Parental (parallel to CFP NT 4/2022) (2022) — Conselho Federal de Serviço Social — https://www.cfess.org.br/

Verification: - https://www.cfess.org.br/

Contact: via cfess.org.br

Notes: CFESS is the federal statutory social work regulator under Lei 8.662/1993 — social work licensure in Brazil requires CFESS/CRESS registration. Institutional position parallel to CFP NT 4/2022 verified via cfess.org.br publications archive.

See also: jurisdiction:brazil, case-study:stj-resp-2108750-go-2024, practitioner:br.cfp

_{ID: br.cfess}

Institutional anchors¶

Instituto Brasileiro de Direito de Família (IBDFAM)¶

Voluntary academic-professional association of Brazilian family-law practitioners and academics; founded 1997; coordinating body across Brazilian universities and family-law practice Belo Horizonte · Minas Gerais · Instituto Brasileiro de Direito de Família — academic-professional family-law association

Stance: LOAD-BEARING LEGAL-ACADEMIC ANCHOR on Brazilian family-law doctrine including PA doctrine. IBDFAM positions inform STJ case-law engagement with Lei 12.318/2010 + Constitution 1988 art. 227 (children's-rights paramountcy). Unlike CFP and CFESS which carry explicit critique-camp positions, IBDFAM operates as an academic-doctrinal aggregator across family-law practice — its institutional commentary engages both recognition-camp procedural application of Lei 12.318/2010 and critique-camp methodological concerns. IBDFAM congresses (Congresso Nacional de Direito de Família) include AP-doctrine panels that have been the principal Brazilian academic forum for the construct debate. Classified institutional rather than recognition or critique on the strength of methodological aggregator role.

Publications: - IBDFAM Congresso Nacional de Direito de Família — AP panels (biennial) (2023) — IBDFAM — https://ibdfam.org.br/

Verification: - https://ibdfam.org.br/

Contact: via ibdfam.org.br

Notes: IBDFAM is the principal Brazilian academic-professional family-law association. Voluntary not statutory regulator. Membership includes leading Brazilian family-law academics and practitioners.

See also: jurisdiction:brazil, case-study:stj-resp-1859228-sp-2024, practitioner:br.cfp, practitioner:br.cfess

_{ID: br.ibdfam}

Licensed CC BY 4.0 — AntiAlienate Knowledge. Source of truth is the sibling .json; this .md is rendered. Do not hand-edit.