First, there should be a way to detect problems. As I said earlier, members who return home after a mission are in a sort of grey area for a while. They will go see a social worker or someone who will conduct a short assessment, but that is not enough to detect problem behaviours. The unfortunate thing is that the family is not involved at that stage. If they were, it could really make a difference. I could have said, for example, that my husband got up last night and was scratching the wall, he was looking for his gun, I touched him, he grabbed me by the hair, he was screaming, crying, throwing up. If I had given that information, which he didn't know because he was asleep, it might have changed things.
There is also the consent that we hear so much about. The member must give his consent to have access to a service. At the beginning, my husband was certainly very angry with me. He felt that I was destroying his career, that I wanted to trap him. These people develop hypervigilance and extreme mistrust. The need for this darned consent meant that, instead of waiting one year to get access to care, we suffered alone at home for 10 years. That's how long it took for him to finally accept help because he never wanted to ask for it.
In addition, the family must play a central role, when a member returns from a mission or even if they do not go abroad. All sorts of things may cause post-traumatic stress. When you have a concern or when a change in behaviour is reported, it is important to consider it.