Important demand from lawyers in the trial of the perpetrator who hospitalized baby Aren: 'The mother should also be arrested'

In the incident that occurred on April 30, 2025, in Aşağımahalle, Sarayköy district, S.B.D., who had divorced her husband some time ago, brought her 2-year-old son, Aren, to Sarayköy State Hospital with signs of beating on his head, face, back, and various parts of his body. An investigation was launched after hospital staff, suspicious of the signs of abuse on the baby's body—whose right eye was completely closed due to a blow and who had a wound on his right arm—reported the situation to police teams. In her statement regarding the matter, the mother, S.B.D., claimed that her boyfriend, S.D., with whom she lived, had beaten her child. Following the investigation launched after the incident, baby Aren was taken under protection, and the defendant, S.D., was arrested and sent to prison. At the hearing held at the Sarayköy 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance, baby Aren's lawyer, Ecem Çağatay, lawyers from the Ministry of Family and Social Services, and the lawyer for the defendant, S.D., were present in the courtroom. While the defendant, S.D., attended the hearing from the prison where he is being held, and the lawyer for the mother, S.B.D., attended via SEGBİS (Audio and Video Information System), the mother, S.B.D., did not attend the hearing. The Denizli Bar Association and the Saadet Teacher Association for Combating Child Abuse requested to join the case, stating that successful results were achieved with the participation of the Diyarbakır Bar Association in the Narin Güran murder case and that this situation constitutes a precedent. The court panel rejected the requests of the Denizli Bar Association and the Saadet Teacher Association for Combating Child Abuse to join the case on the grounds that they did not have the status of being harmed by the crime.

Emergency Room Doctor Neslihan Sağlam, who stated that when they asked the mother, S.B.D., about the past injuries on Aren's body, they persistently received the answer that he had not been beaten, said, "There were numerous signs of beating all over Aren. He was in a state of sleep, and his general condition was very poor. I saw in his tomography that he had fractures and old injuries. It was by chance that his internal organs were not injured and he did not have a brain hemorrhage. We met the child's needs; I brought my own child's clothes and gave them to him. The mother, S.B.D., only asked us about Aren's health status from time to time. She said she was going to give a statement and never stopped by the hospital again. Despite announcements being made, she did not come to Aren's side. The mother, S.B.D., told us that such an incident had happened for the first time and that there had been no beating in the past. Aren had a fracture in his hip and arm that had healed, but there was no previous application to a hospital. When we asked the mother, S.B.D., about the past injuries on the child's body, she persistently said that he had not been beaten in the past. The injuries on Aren's body were not injuries resulting from a fall. There were many signs of beating on his body."

Emergency room assistant doctor Ömer Faruk Aytürk said, "There were bruises on Aren's body. According to my initial assessment, I thought there might be a skull fracture. I informed the child's mother that his life was in danger. The mother, S.B.D., did not have the sadness of a mother whose child is in pain and suffering. When I asked what happened, she said, 'What will happen, his father beat him.' When I asked where his father was, she replied, 'He drank, he passed out at home.' The mother's attitude was quite cold-blooded. We saw that there was a fracture in Aren's arm and that it had healed. There were small, cigarette-compatible burn marks on the child's body, both new and old. There were pinpoint bruises on his back." The defendant, S.D., who did not accept the accusations, said, "On the day of the incident, I bought her bus ticket with money that was in S.B.D.'s account but belonged to me. I had given bracelets to S.B.D., and she took those too. I cannot prove my innocence while I am held here. S.B.D. is slandering me. There is no hostility between us; I don't know why she is doing this. I did not beat Aren. I request to be released." The lawyer for the mother, S.B.D., defended her by saying, "Since it was a forensic case, the mother went to the police to give a statement. The witnesses misunderstood this as not caring for Aren. Later, she left the hospital to bring clothes for Aren."

Lawyers for the Ministry of Family and Social Services stated that they believed the crime of intentional killing had occurred and that both defendants should be tried for attempted intentional killing, saying, "We are complainants against both defendants. We demand the arrest of S.B.D. S.B.D. is trying to escape the crime. The defendants have committed the crime of tormenting the baby. As can be understood from the messages between S.B.D. and her mother, the child has different injuries on different dates. It is clear that the defendants are trying to cover up the incident. Contrary to S.B.D.'s statement, it is clear that she does not look like a frightened and worried mother. Although they foresaw that Aren could die, they inflicted blows to his head. We demand that the defendants be punished with the heaviest penalty."

Aren's lawyer, Ecem Çağatay, who demanded that baby Aren's mother also be tried in custody, said, "According to the precedent decision of the Court of Cassation, we believe that the crime of attempted intentional killing has occurred. The victim was systematically subjected to violence by the defendants. There are contradictions in S.B.D.'s statement. The mother has violated her duty of protection. The mother turned a blind eye to this situation. We are of the opinion that the mother should also be tried in custody. It is obvious that Aren was allowed to be subjected to violence in these events. We demand that the case be heard as attempted intentional killing, and if this is rejected, that the defendants be tried for the crime of tormenting a child and be punished to the maximum extent." After hearing the parties, the court panel decided to continue the detention of the defendant, S.D., rejected the request for the arrest of S.B.D., decided to continue the trial of S.B.D. without arrest, and adjourned the hearing. Baby Aren's lawyer, Ecem Çağatay, said, "What is important for us here is the best interest of the child, and we will do our best to ensure that the defendants receive the necessary punishment in this file. Throughout the entire hearing and session, we reiterated for our client, Aren, that the mother's detention is also required. The court rejected our detention request. It continued the mother's judicial control decision. When we look at the final reports that have arrived here, we saw reports indicating that the child was subjected to violence repeatedly, both hip fractures and bone fractures, and old injuries that started to heal on his arm. It is seen here that this violence against the child continued for months, but the mother turned a blind eye to this violence; it is clearly obvious. We reiterated this and wanted the mother to be tried in the form of detention, not with judicial control. We had been thinking about this since the very beginning of the process. Likewise, it is clear that the child was subjected to violence by the stepfather. It is now proven by reports. However, we will repeat the mother's negligence over and over again throughout this process."

Emphasizing that the mother and stepfather are trying to get away with the incident by blaming each other, lawyer Çağatay said, "The mother's statements are in the direction of, 'This beating incident only happened once. That's why we came to the hospital.' Actually, this whole investigation phase starts on this. However, when looking at the report obtained at the hospital, which can be resolved with the first Simple Medical Intervention, and the final report, the child's past injuries are taken into account. The mother, so to speak, gives her first opening here. That is, the mother is afraid because the child will probably go into a coma as a result of serious injuries. She brings the child to the hospital, thinking that she will receive a penalty for negligence instead of being tried for committing the crime of murder. But as I said, it has been revealed here. The injuries on the child are also proven by reports. The detained defendant has not accepted this since the very beginning of the hearing, and even since the very beginning of the investigation phase, but there are also the statements of his witnesses here. When they first came to Sarayköy, they introduced themselves as a family and the defendant as the child's biological father. Therefore, they live in a 3-person family. There is no outside intervention. The witnesses also acknowledge this. Therefore, only one person is harmed in this family. Who is responsible here? Either the mother or the father, so they are both trying to get away with this incident by blaming each other. However, what is obvious here is that both of them have been consistently abusing the child in cooperation."