1) Purpose: return, not custody merits
The 1980 Hague Convention is designed to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in another Contracting State, so that custody issues can be determined by the authorities of the child’s habitual residence. It is not a “who should get custody?” trial; it is a “where should custody be decided?” mechanism.
The treaty text and the official materials published by Hague Conference on Private International Law emphasize this structural goal: restoring the pre-abduction jurisdictional status quo while protecting children through limited refusal grounds.
2) Turkey’s implementation: Central Authority, prosecutors, and family courts
Turkey implements the Convention through Law No. 5717, which explicitly frames its aim as regulating the procedures for return to the child’s habitual residence and the effective exercise of access/contact rights in Convention cases.
The Central Authority function is carried out through the Ministry’s designated unit and operationally through local public prosecutors, as described in official Central Authority information sources.
3) What counts as “wrongful removal or retention”?
A case generally requires:
- a child habitually resident in a Contracting State,
- a breach of “rights of custody” under the law of that State,
- and the fact that those rights were being exercised (or would have been but for the removal/retention).
4) The four practical thresholds
(1) Age: The Convention applies until the child reaches 16.
(2) Habitual residence: A fact-based center-of-life inquiry (schooling, healthcare routine, social environment, continuity).
(3) Custody rights breach: Often requires a careful look at orders, agreements, and the relevant legal framework of the habitual residence State.
(4) Exercise of custody: Proof that the left-behind parent was actively involved, or would have been.
5) Timing: the “one-year” dynamic and settlement arguments
Time is not just procedural; it shapes outcomes. While the Convention’s structure strongly favors return when the application is made promptly, a delayed application may invite arguments that the child is “settled” in the new environment.
For case strategy, this means early action is often the difference between a clean return analysis and a complex factual battle.
6) Exceptions: when return can be refused
Commonly litigated grounds include:
- Consent or acquiescence by the left-behind parent,
- Grave risk of physical/psychological harm or an intolerable situation upon return,
- The child’s objections if the child has sufficient age and maturity,
- and a narrow gateway linked to fundamental principles/human rights considerations.
A key practical point: these exceptions should be argued with targeted evidence so that the court can decide the Convention question without drifting into a full custody trial.
7) Evidence strategy: what actually persuades courts
A strong file is built around a timeline + connecting factors:
- Habitual residence evidence: school records, healthcare schedule, home lease, parents’ employment, community ties
- Custody rights evidence: custody orders, parental responsibility documentation, enforceable agreements
- Removal/retention proof: travel records, passport entries, flight tickets, written communications
- Rebutting consent: early objections, formal notices, prompt application steps
- Grave risk package (if raised): protective orders, medical reports, police records, psychological assessments (ideally structured and corroborated)
International formalities—apostille/legalisation and sworn translations—often decide whether the case proceeds quickly or stalls.
8) Common pitfalls in Turkey-focused practice
- Treating return proceedings as a custody merits case
- Ignoring timing and settlement dynamics
- Under-documenting habitual residence
- Raising “grave risk” without concrete, corroborated proof
- Misunderstanding the Central Authority / prosecutor channel described in official practice notes
9) Closing takeaway
Hague return proceedings are best won by precision: defining habitual residence with documents, presenting a clean timeline, and framing exceptions with evidence—not rhetoric. In Turkey, understanding the Law No. 5717 framework and the Central Authority/prosecutor pipeline is essential for speed and procedural correctness.
Yanıt yok