Another repeated message from the adult interviews concerns the lack of after-care facilities available to those who have been through the abduction process and the desperate need for such provision for all parties involved, including those who may have lost custody, those who are suffering ill-health and loss of livelihood or home, those who have recovered their children and the children themselves.60 Many parents expressed their desire to see such after-care provision made available to all those involved in these cases.61 There is also a perceived need for monitoring the situation of children who are returned to the State of habitual residence in terms of observing whether the conditions upon which return has been ordered have been
complied with implementation. 62
One of the issues concerning many parents is the lack of specialist advice and knowledge that is easily accessible to those in urgent need in these cases. The serious consequences for those unable to secure such expert guidance at the outset were often reported, including the abduction incident itself which, it would seem, could sometimes be avoided where such reliable information and advice is provided.63 In other cases, it was
60This echoes Greif’s findings regarding the need for an availability of knowledgeable mental health services to service families that have experienced an abduction, “Parental Report” supra at 64.
61 Greif found that “reading and hearing about others’ experiences is also helpful to the parents” and suggests that support groups dealing with abduction are appropriate interventions “Parental Report”, supra at 69.
62 The Revised Brussels 11 Regulation allows effectively for mirror orders and for the judge in the requested State to ensure conditions. Additionally, through Court co-operation, it is possible for the returning Court to be reassured that a specific Court in the State of habitual residence will be hearing the case on a specific date post-return. The returning State has no legitimate interest in what is decided once the child has been returned to the requesting State. This is emphasised in the Revised Brussels 11 Regulation which provides greater security on the immediate arrangements and for ensuring that the case is suitably entrenched in a specific court in the State of habitual residence. Undertakings may still occur when deemed appropriate by the returning Court, for example when the circumstances are fairly trivial and it might not be thought necessary to trouble the Court in the State of habitual residence to make an order. However, where, for example, there is a need for social services involvement, or where it is thought that the left-behind parent may renege, a returning Court is very unlikely to use undertakings. There is no central monitoring system in place because it is inherent in the Hague system that the returning State places its trust in the requesting State. For suggestions on how local monitoring might assist, see Overall Conclusions.
63 This is especially important as some returned abducting parents found that they were unable to pursue domestic proceedings because of the lack of legal aid in that State and their inability to finance the proceedings privately. Others were certain that they would never have abducted if they had been aware that they risked the loss of custody of their child. These are matters which they stress should have been made known to them from those from whom they sought advice. Although some parents