much a part of “the abduction” to these people as the physical abduction incident itself.
18 of the 25 previously interviewed parents (72%) thought that there had been effects on the children from the abduction. Of these 18 parents, 6 were abductors and 12 were left-behind parents.
Although some of these 6 abducting parents accepted that the effects they described resulted from the abduction itself, others felt that the effects resulted from “ancillary matters” to the abduction, rather than the abduction itself. Various examples were cited of these “ancillary matters”:
the “endless court cases initiated by the abduction”,
not being able to be where the child wanted to be (having been returned to the State of habitual residence in Hague Convention proceedings and not being granted leave to remove the jurisdiction by the Courts of the home country),
the length of time taken by the Courts in reaching a conclusion,
the continuing conflict between the parents post-return, and
the absolute upheaval caused by the return order only to be swiftly followed by a successful leave to remove application in the home State.
One parent interviewed (4%) did not know if there had been any effects as he has had no contact with the child.