however, to comment on the possible effects on the other parent or to accept that such exist.
Many left-behind parents expressed the view34 that the greatest effect of the abduction which they had suffered was attributable to the shock of the abduction itself. This is not to say that the left-behind parents were not aware of the familial unhappiness and discord which may have prompted the abduction but, rather, that they were not expecting the other parent to leave with the child(ren) or, even if they had considered that this might occur, they were not expecting it at that time.
The actual abduction incident did not have the same effect for the abducting parent as for the left-behind parent as, naturally, the event did not come as a shock in the same way as it had for most of the left-behind parents. The fact of the abduction usually came as a relief to the abducting parent who found strength and empowerment at reaching perceived safety in the abducted-to State. For abducting parents, the shock was, almost universally, in being returned to the State of habitual residence and the greatest of the effects of the abduction to these parents has been the event of return. Most of the abductors have described their disbelief and anger at being returned to jurisdictions where they, and their children, continued to suffer the issues which had caused them to abduct, without the support from their families that they had temporarily found in the abducted-to State. They have spoken of feeling “vulnerable and alone”, of being “totally isolated and impoverished”, and “terrified and distraught” on being returned. They were usually without funds to finance the proceedings in the home State, including those to enforce the undertakings which had been given to the returning Court and upon which the return order had been made. One abductor describes the return to the home State as “the single most violent thing which has ever happened