A nightmarish case

The case we are about to describe is not a political case, nor is it a murder, money laundering, or drug case. It is an ordinary divorce and custody case.

Why are we drawing attention to such a case while everything around us seems to be in flames? Because it is a striking example of how the decay in the judiciary and the law of the powerful can permeate even such cases.

Let us begin.

T.E., a pediatrician living in Adana, and her husband E.E. filed for divorce last year due to severe incompatibility. Since the couple has two daughters, aged 3 and 4, a custody case was also heard alongside it. The father, E.E., is the son of a wealthy, well-known family, but he is also unemployed, has no health insurance, and has a criminal record of 8 counts, including negligent injury, death threats, and insults.

CHILDREN TO A FATHER WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD

According to Dr. T.E.'s allegations, E.E. subjected her to physical violence, psychologically abused her daughter from a previous marriage, and occasionally mistreated their joint daughter, D.

In the initial stages of the case, the father claimed that Dr. T.E. was not of sound mind, citing some recordings he had secretly made while they were living together. Upon this, the Family Court granted temporary custody to the father during the preliminary hearing until the Social Investigation Report (SİR) was received.

The Social Investigation Report arrived in the file. The report noted that, given the developmental stage of the joint children, they needed maternal care and affection, and that it would be in the children's best interest to spend this period with their mother. It then recommended that custody be granted to the mother, pending the results of a report to be obtained from a relevant health institution regarding whether the mother had any psychopathological issues.

Mother T.E. stated that she has been a doctor for 18 years and currently works at the Adana City Hospitals, but to leave no room for doubt, she requested the court to refer her to the Forensic Medicine Institute. However, the judge rejected this. Following this, T.E. applied to a Mental Health Hospital herself. As a result of the evaluation conducted at the hospital, a report was issued stating that T.E. had no recorded follow-up or treatment. T.E. submitted this report to the court on May 9.

Subsequently, at the hearing on May 21, her lawyer, Mehtap Bayram, submitted the Social Investigation Report, the report regarding T.E.'s mental health, and the father E.E.'s 8 criminal records from the Judicial Registry to the court and requested custody. But neither the request, nor the reports, nor the criminal record were entered into the minutes. In this hearing, where witnesses were heard, the judge was about to set a new hearing date without even touching upon the custody issue when Attorney Mehtap Bayram objected and requested that custody be granted. The judge stated that he would evaluate the custody issue between sessions and postponed the hearing to November.

15 days later, Attorney Bayram applied to the court again with the reports, witness statements, and other documents in her possession, reminding the court of the custody issue.

The judge, on the grounds that “there is no change in the current situation,” decided this time that “the custody issue should be evaluated at the hearing.”

When Attorney Bayram wanted to speak with the judge to clarify the absurdity, the Clerk of the Court replied, “The judge does not want to see you.” Upon this, Attorney Bayram went to the President of the Justice Commission and explained the situation. After the Commission President called, the judge came out of her office and spoke with Attorney Bayram at the clerk's desk, saying that the Social Investigation Report and other documents entered into the file did not bind her, and said, “Apply again.”

Four days later, Attorney Bayram applied again with a new petition. Two days later, the judge issued the decision: “Considering the documents in the file, the Social Investigation Report, witness statements, and expert reports, it has not been found appropriate by our court to change the temporary custody status.” Meanwhile, she noted that the parties could “apply for an appeal within two weeks” regarding the decision.

Attorney Bayram objected, reminding that such a decision could only be appealed together with the final verdict. That objection was also rejected with a decision stating that “since it is not within the appeal period, the path to appeal is open.” Attorney Bayram stated that that decision could not be appealed either, and requested that the interim decision be reversed and custody be granted to the mother. The judge rejected this application as well, on the grounds that “there is no illegality in the decision.”

RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED FOR THE FATHER

You felt distressed while reading this, didn't you? But it's not over.

While the case was ongoing, one day the father, E.E., took his sick children to the Pediatric Emergency department where Dr. T.E., who is in the process of divorcing him, works. Since he has no health insurance, while having the registration opened in Dr. T.E.'s name, he fought with the clerk on duty and, after hurling insults and threats at Dr. T.E. in her absence, left the hospital without having the children examined.

Following this incident, the Adana City Hospital administration filed a criminal complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against E.E. on the grounds that he disrupted public order by causing a fight in the hospital, along with camera footage and the statement of the clerk recorded in the minutes. Dr. T.E. also filed a complaint against E.E. due to the insults and threats directed at her, and the Yüreğir District Police Department issued an ex officio “restraining order” against E.E. under the scope of “situations where delay is dangerous.”

The restraining order in question was submitted to the court for approval. However, the judge added a note to the report stating, “the request for approval of the ex officio issued precautionary decision is rejected based on the scope of the file and the position of the parties and the manner in which the incident occurred.”

Why this note was added was understood later; because E.E. used that note as a basis and objected to the restraining order as well.

After the incident at the hospital, Attorney Mehtap Bayram and Dr. T.E. repeated the custody request so that the children, who were taken away without being treated despite being sick, would not be further victimized; but the judge rejected it again on the grounds that “there is no illegality in the decision.”

MOTHER EVICTED

There is more.

The house they lived in while married was acquired as follows:

E.E. asked Dr. T.E. to sell the car she had acquired before this marriage and give him the money, and also asked for the title deed of the house that also belonged to T.E. T.E. fulfilled both requests and became the owner of a 1/2 share of the newly purchased house.

E.E., who left that house 1 year ago, moved into a 4+1 room house owned by his mother, along with the children. According to the on-site findings of the experts who prepared the Social Investigation Report, the house in question is quite good; meaning he does not need a house.

But using the children as an excuse, he requested that this joint house be allocated to him to live with his mother and father. According to Dr. T.E., the reason for this request is to victimize her and to disrupt the routine of her daughter from her first marriage, who is preparing for high school entrance exams and attending a school near that house.

When E.E. applied for the allocation of this house, the judge who made the decisions we described above was on leave, so the duty judge evaluated the request.

The result; that judge also decided to allocate this house, 1/2 of which belongs to Dr. T.E. and all the furniture of which was also purchased by T.E., to E.E.

And then?

The police went to the house and asked Dr. T.E. to vacate it.

When Dr. T.E. showed the restraining order against E.E., to whom the house was allocated, the police left.

E.E. went to court again. This time, he obtained a decision from the duty judge for Dr. T.E. to be evicted from the house.

Upon this, her lawyer Mehtap Bayram found the following temporary solution: Dr. T.E. invited her mother to stay there with her daughter, while she herself left the house to stay with a friend.

The police came again. This time, they wanted Dr. T.E.'s mother and daughter to leave the house. The police only left the house after the lawyer's long efforts and after drawing up a report.

WHAT IS NEXT?

Let us also report the latest situation as of this week:

Dr. T.E. and her lawyer Mehtap Bayram, in a long petition, explained all these events point by point and stated that “due to the procedures contrary to procedure, law, justice, and conscience carried out to date, they have serious doubts and justified concerns regarding the decisions to be made regarding the case from now on,” and while requesting the judge to withdraw from the case so that the process can be conducted in a fair, impartial, and lawful manner, three more things happened:

E.E. applied to the court this time to ban the children from meeting with their mother...

The residence of the daughter whom Dr. T.E. left at home with her grandmother was somehow deleted from that address...

The police called Dr. T.E. and pressured her to vacate the house...

Like a nightmare, isn't it?!