A High Court judge has denied a father’s application under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 to return his children to Türkiye following their mother’s planned abduction, prioritising the welfare of the girls who are said to be “basking in the stability” of their UK home.
Mr Justice Hayden, sitting in the Family Division at the Royal Courts of Justice, acknowledged the abduction was “towards the higher end of the index of gravity and requires to be identified as such”, but said the views of the girls – S (8) and R (6) – “require to be afforded great and ultimately determinative weight”, and their return to Türkiye would “generate great stress”.
The mother of the girls, M, is a British national who met the father, F, during a holiday to Türkiye in 2014. In 2015, M relocated to Türkiye and the couple married in 2016. Both girls hold dual British and Turkish nationality and are fluent in English and Turkish.
The marriage broke down in 2024, with M alleging a sustained pattern of abuse, coercive control, racial hostility, degrading treatment and threats to kill. F denies the allegations and claims M was abusive, citing a conviction for actual bodily harm.
Following the breakdown of the marriage, F returned home from work in his restaurant to find his clothes in bin bags outside the family home and the doors locked. He subsequently obtained a protection order against M, requiring her to vacate the family home. The Turkish court granted M access to the children twice in two months.
M moved into her own rented accommodation, during which time her own parents visited and were accused of “an explosion of abuse” against F in a restaurant full of diners. F also said he was receiving increasingly abusive messages from M, resulting in two successful applications for extension of the protection order, with the second in place for two months from 4th December 2024.
On 13th December 2024, M removed the children from school. F made an urgent application for an interim custody order to prevent the children’s removal from Türkiye. Having learned the children had been removed, F made an application for temporary custody.
In April 2025, M confirmed she would not return the children to Türkiye, citing Article 13(2) objections.
The children have since resided with M and their maternal grandparents in the UK and had negligible contact with F.
Although R had displayed behaviour “sufficiently striking for an experienced Cafcass Officer to indicate that she needs therapeutic help,” the children were described in school reports as making good progress.
Mr Justice Hayden noted:
“It is clear that the upheaval in these children’s lives has had a predictably adverse impact on them as, no doubt, has their exposure to adult conflict. Against this backdrop, their progress and burgeoning confidence at school illuminates what I consider to be their claimant need for stability and security. The Head Teacher’s observations eloquently identify the children’s feelings which, in turn, add depth and force to their expressed wishes. In the wider context of this analysis of their needs, their objections to returning to Türkiye gain much greater weight, force and authenticity.”
The judge acknowledged that comments from both girls about their father and life in Türkiye reflected “M’s influence on the girls’ expressed views”. He also did not regard M “as a reliable chronicler of the truth” and noted a considerable number of “colourful allegations” against F “did not fit with the broader canvas of the evidence”.
Noting that F “spent most of his time working at the restaurant, often till late at night,” Mr Justice Hayden said it was difficult to see when he had engaged in the serious crimes alleged by M, including human trafficking.
He added:
“There is barely a scintilla of evidence of any of these serious allegations.”
The lack of detail from M regarding the allegations of threats preventing her return to Türkiye failed to discharge the burden of proof when asserting the Article 13(b) defence, Mr Justice Hayden noted.
However, he said it was clear the girls were basking in the stability of their UK home and, by F’s own case, a return to Türkiye would result in further litigation and “great stress” for the girls and their mother.
Refusing the application, he concluded:
“It is in this context, that I can consider their expressed views, notwithstanding the influence of M, require to be afforded great and ultimately determinative weight…
“In short, they are thriving. They have been living in the United Kingdom now for almost exactly a year. Inevitably, the further one gets from the speedy return contemplated by the Convention, the weaker the pull of the general Convention considerations of comity become.
“Ultimately and for these reasons, I consider their welfare needs points strongly to remaining in the UK. It is their own instinctive recognition of this which, I find, generates their objections.”
