Buscador de jurisprudencia

The mother and father were both Turkish nationals who met in February 2022. They both lived in Turkey though the father had strong business connections with the USA. They began a relationship but broke up soon after and then got back together. In January 2023 the mother discovered she was pregnant and decided to keep the baby. In June 2023 the parents moved in together in Istanbul and the child was born a month later. 

The parents discussed moving to the USA though their relationship was volatile and, at times, physically violent. They married in July 2024.

The father agreed for the mother and child to travel to the US for a holiday and purchased one-way plane tickets. The mother and child travelled on 1 September 2024. In October 2024 the mother informed the father that she would not be returning to Turkey and that she wanted a divorce. 

In November 2024 the father submitted an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention to the Turkish Ministry of Justice for the return of the child. In December 2024 the father filed for asylum in the USA. 

Between January and May 2024 the father visited the child multiple times. The father registered a company in the USA and discussed the possibility of moving there permanently in January 2026. Those plans never materialised, due in part to shifting economic conditions and increased tariffs that severely harmed his business.

In June 2025 the father returned to Turkey. In July 2025 he filed his application under the 1980 Convention in the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The mother argued that Article 13(1)(b) applied and that returning the child to Turkey would expose him to a grave risk of harm and that the father consented or acquiesced to the removal.

Return ordered. The child was wrongfully removed from Turkey and the mother failed to demonstrate that any of the exceptions to return applied. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

The mother argued that she suffered violence, psychological abuse, and sexual abuse at the hands of the father that would expose the child to a grave risk of harm if he were to be returned to Turkey. However, the court held that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the child would be subjected to such a risk and the alleged violence was not repeated abuse but isolated incidents. There was also no indication that the abuse would continue in the future.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

The mother also argued that the father consented to the child’s removal and acquiesced to him remaining in the USA. 

Regarding consent, although there was much evidence that the parents hoped to move to the USA, it was clear that the father consented only to a temporary visit. When the mother told him they would not be returning he quickly submitted an application to the Turkish Ministry of Justice. 

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

The mother contended that the father had a consistent attitude over their first six months in the USA that demonstrated that he acquiesced to the child remaining there, including making inquiries about permanent residency and enrolling the child in daycare. However, the court held that the father’s efforts to remain in the child’s life did not amount to acquiescence and noted that the father continued to press for the child’s return.