Father who abused his 4-year-old child released: 'If we don't raise our voices, this will never end'

Reporter's note: This report contains elements that may be triggering for some of our readers. Details regarding the incident have not been shared with the public in the best interest of the child.

SİNEM NAZLI DEMİR

Özge Bora learned that her 4-year-old child had been abused by their father in 2024 during a conversation with her child. Bora, who divorced the child's father in 2023, described the process following the divorce and the obstacles she faced from the moment she realized the abuse with the following words:

“During our marriage, he assaulted me three times, but I was forced to withdraw my complaints by the defendant's family. After a while, we divorced in 2023 due to this violence. After the divorce, I allowed him to see our child for the child's best interest. Since June 1, 2024, I realized through my child's own accounts that they were being abused by their biological father, and I filed a criminal complaint. However, we have gone through a very difficult process.”

“HIS STATEMENT WAS NOT TAKEN FOR MONTHS”

Stating that the defendant's statement was not taken for a long time after the criminal complaint was filed, Bora reported that his statement could only be taken after he was caught committing other crimes:

“After the criminal complaint, he was not caught for months and his statement was not taken. During the period when his statement was not taken, this individual got involved in other crimes. He carjacked a taxi and committed violence against another woman. He was caught as a result of these crimes he committed, and he gave his first statement regarding our case in February 2025.”

“HE REMAINED IN CUSTODY FOR 1 MONTH AND WAS RELEASED”

Stating that the defendant remained in prison for a very short time, Özge Bora emphasized that the protective measures that should have been applied when the defendant was released were not implemented:

“I obtained a protection order during this process. According to this order, an electronic ankle monitor should have been attached upon his release, but the prison did not show the necessary diligence, and after one month, this individual was released without a monitor. The justification for his release was, ‘Evidence has been collected, there is no issue requiring continued detention.’ So, he only remained in custody for one month. Although he was released with a mandatory signature requirement, he did not go to sign in and did not comply with the judicial control conditions. We stated this situation at the first hearing and requested his arrest, citing his failure to comply with the release decisions. However, the court did not arrest him; on the contrary, it completely lifted the judicial control measures imposed on the individual.”

“AN ANKLE MONITOR IS NOT A DEFINITIVE PROTECTIVE MEASURE”

The defendant's lawyers made attempts to have the defendant exempted from punishment by arguing that he “lacks criminal capacity.” The court ruled that a report must be obtained from the Council of Forensic Medicine. Özge Bora described the process of the defendant's lawyers requesting a criminal capacity report for the defendant with the following words:

“They were able to attach his monitor after a while, but the monitor method is not a definitive protective measure. Because the monitors attached malfunction repeatedly, and whenever these malfunctions occur, we are called by the monitoring centers every time. Those who call us ask, ‘Do you have a request for a shelter?’ I have a bedridden mother; I have no chance of going to a shelter. Besides, no other measures are being taken. Our third hearing was held on February 28. We were waiting for the report from the Council of Forensic Medicine regarding the defendant's criminal capacity, but it did not arrive in time for the hearing, and therefore the hearing was postponed. Because at the previous hearing, the opposing party's lawyer made a defense that the individual lacked criminal capacity. During this process, the report was issued, and the result came back that ‘he has criminal capacity.’”