Six of the 25 parents interviewed (24%) thought there had been no effects from the abduction on the children. Of the 6 interviewed parents who did not think the abduction had affected the child(ren), 3 were abductors and 3 were left- behind parents. It is interesting to consider the statements of the left-behind parents in this context:
One of the left-behind parents stated that there were currently no obvious effects from the abduction and that it would be difficult, in the future, to attribute any difficulties the child(ren) encountered to the abduction, rather than adolescence.
Another left-behind parent thought there had been no effect from the abduction but admitted that the abducting (now residential) parent believed that harm had been suffered by the child. This resulted from the child being returned by the requested Courts so that the child missed schooling there which then had to be made up when the requesting State granted the abducting parent and child leave to remove.
The other left-behind parent did not think the abduction had affected the child(ren) other than through the “ancillary matters” which occurred once the child(ren) was returned – reflecting the statements made by some of the abducting parents above.
Some of the effects on the child(ren) cited by the interviewed parents were:
physical symptoms of stress, headaches for several weeks clinginess, rashes, crying, wetting, nervous coughs, high
for example sickness, after return, alopecia, stomach pains, bed- temperatures,
non physical effects, for example: