Cases heard under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction are held to a much stricter timetable than traditional litigation. While a normal family court case may drag on for months, Hague Convention cases should ideally be resolved within six weeks. While this expedited timetable provides the advantage of a quick resolution and the least disruption for the child, it also necessitates that Hague Convention cases operate under slightly different rules than normal family court cases.
One of the most time-consuming aspects of traditional family court litigation is the hearing of evidence. This is especially true for oral evidence because oral statements usually are delivered in person by witnesses who must be sworn in, examined and then cross-examined. Therefore, in order to conserve time, Hague Convention cases severely restrict the use of oral evidence. Instead, Hague cases must be argued mainly based on the original petition with supporting affidavits.
Like many aspects of the practical execution of the Hague Convention, this rule differs depending on the jurisdiction and judge. Some judges have completely banned supplementing the petition with additional oral evidence, while others have reluctantly allowed oral testimony to be given in cases where both parties are present in court and the written affidavits disagree on a point of fact.
The balance that judges need to strike, between a speedy hearing and a comprehensive review of the evidence, is a difficult one. On the one hand, some critics argue that return orders are drastic legal measures that greatly affect the lives of everyone involved and judges should have access to all the evidence, even oral testimony, before making a decision. On the other hand, ensuring a quick hearing reduces the stress and burden on the family and child. Furthermore, a more comprehensive review of the evidence would change the hearing from a reliable procedural method for returning abducted children, which is the goal of the Hague Convention, into a normal family court hearing on the merits. Maintaining this balance effectively is the job of the judges and lawyers involved with Hague Convention cases.