Allegations of abuse and violence against a three-year-old at Sevinç College! Family requests support for the September 25 hearing

SİNEM NAZLI DEMİR

The judicial process continues regarding allegations that a three-year-old child was sexually abused by a person working as a cleaner at a private school located in the Şerifali neighborhood of Istanbul's Ümraniye district, which was operating under the Sevinç College brand at the time of the incident. Documents entered into the file include the child's statement at the Child Monitoring Center, the report prepared by the school after the incident, the defendant's defense, expert examinations of the disks belonging to the camera system, and the administrative sanctions applied to the school by the Ministry of National Education. It is also stated that other children at the school witnessed parts of the events and that the children and their families have provided statements as part of the investigation.

(The identity of the child, who was three years old at the time of the incident, has not been disclosed in this report in consideration of the child's best interests. This report contains statements that may be triggering for some of our readers.)

“MY DAUGHTER WAS VERY SCARED WHEN SHE SAW THE MAN AND CLUNG TO MY LEG”

The child's mother said that the events began on the morning of May 10, 2024, when she took her daughter to school. Stating that they saw the elderly janitor waiting at the door to greet the children in the schoolyard, the mother described what happened to 12punto as follows:

“On the morning of May 10, 2024, my three-year-old daughter and I left home and went to school. As we approached the school gate, we saw the elderly janitor waiting in the yard to greet the children. As we entered the schoolyard with my daughter, she saw the man and was very scared, immediately clinging to my leg. I said 'good morning' to this person, and then he said to me, 'I love your daughter very much, she looks like my granddaughter,' which made me uncomfortable.

I asked the teachers, 'Is there a problem here?' I tried to ask my daughter what was wrong, but I couldn't get an answer. Upon this, I asked for the education coordinator to call me. Later, they called me and said that this person had shouted at the children in the cafeteria one day and that my daughter was afraid of him because of this. At that time, I was not yet aware of the abuse allegations. I asked, 'When there are three teachers in the classroom, what was this person doing in the cafeteria? How can he shout at my daughter?' The education coordinator said, 'You are right, we apologize. It won't happen again.'"

The mother stated that later, her daughter did not want to talk about the subject and shouted at her, “Don't talk about him, he is a bad man, he plays bad games, he hits me”:

“Then she told me what this person had done to her. I was shocked by what I heard.”

The mother said that she could not record the first time her daughter spoke, but during the second conversation, she recorded what was said on video and sent it to a pedagogue. She stated that the pedagogue indicated there were serious signs of violence and abuse in the accounts and recommended that they apply to the prosecutor's office without delay.

COLLEGE SUSPENDED THE PERSONNEL AFTER THE FAMILY'S COMPLAINT ON MAY 18

The mother said that she sent the video recording in which her daughter described what she had experienced to the college administration and informed them that they wanted to watch the camera footage of the areas where the events took place. She stated that the college administration invited them to the school on May 13 but later said there was a technical malfunction in the system and that they were waiting for a technician.

The mother stated that she was kept waiting from May 13 to May 15 with the excuse of a technical malfunction and a technician. She expressed that when she went to the college alone on the third day, she was told that it was not legally possible for parents to watch the camera footage.

The mother said that after informing the school administration, they applied to a pedagogue and the child started therapy:

“The pedagogues we consulted said that we should report the situation to the competent authorities without delay. My husband and I went to the police station and filed a complaint.”

The mother's complaint statement was drawn up on May 18, 2024. In this statement, the mother explained that she had recorded her child's accounts, sent the recordings to the school's preschool coordinator, and went to the school on May 13 to watch the camera footage. The mother specifically emphasized that during the meeting, they tried to show her approximately two minutes of footage selected from the cafeteria, but she did not accept this and did not watch any camera footage belonging to the college. The mother alleged that in the same meeting, she was threatened by the school principal and a lawyer, who told her that she would face sanctions if she shared the video containing her daughter's accounts.

The mother argued that there was a contradiction between the date written in the report and the process that actually took place. She said that the personnel was only suspended after the family's complaint on May 18 and that the college administration filed a complaint with the judicial authorities only after this application.

CHILD WAS INTERVIEWED AT THE CHILD MONITORING CENTER

The three-year-old child was interviewed in May 2024 at the Child Monitoring Center in the presence of a prosecutor, a forensic interviewer, and a lawyer.

In the interview, the child stated that an elderly school employee had abused her and that these behaviors had occurred more than once. In order to protect the child's privacy and best interests, the details of her statement are not included in this report.

In a letter dated May 24, 2024, from the İstanbul Anadolu Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, it was requested that another child mentioned in the child's statement be interviewed in the presence of a pedagogue and that three teachers working at the school be interviewed as witnesses.

The mother said, “Our daughter could not tell us everything she experienced. She told the pedagogue assigned at the Child Monitoring Center many things that were done to her. The interview lasted about 45 minutes. After the statement was completed, the suspect was arrested on the same day upon the prosecutor's request for arrest.” The suspect, who was arrested by the judgeship, remained in custody for about six months. The mother said that the file was initially heard in the high criminal court and that the defendant was in custody during the first hearing.

HE SAID “I HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN,” BUT ADMITTED IN THE REPORT THAT HE SHOUTED AT THE CHILD IN THE CAFETERIA

In his police statement on May 22, the defendant said that he had been doing cleaning, renovation, and gardening work for about a year at the school, a few days a week when called by the management. He denied the accusations against him, arguing that he had no dialogue or contact with the children, and requested that the camera recordings be examined. The defendant also claimed that he did not know the child and had never been in the cafeteria. However, in the official report prepared by the college administration, it was recorded that the defendant was in the cafeteria, admitted to shouting at the child, and wanted to apologize to the family.

The defendant claimed that the accusation was made because the family argued with the school because they did not want to pay the school fees. The mother denied this allegation. The mother said that all school fees were paid via bank transfer and that there was no argument with the school administration due to unpaid fees.

The mother stated that the defendant defended himself during the trial with the words, “I am a man who prays, I do not walk around without ablution,” and said, “Saying that he is a believer is not an answer to the allegations against him.”

CİMER APPLICATION REVEALED THAT THE PERSONNEL WAS NOT IN THE MEB RECORDS

In the CİMER (Presidential Communication Center) response dated December 20, 2024, from the Ümraniye District Directorate of National Education, it was reported that the application made by the family was examined and that as a result of the investigation, disciplinary penalties were applied to the institution's administrators and an administrative fine was imposed on the school.

However, the short response sent to the family did not include the reasons for the penalties or details regarding whether the school employee was in the MEB records. The mother said that in their first meeting with the Ministry of National Education inspectors, they were told that the personnel complained about was not in the MEB records.

The mother argued that the person in question did not only do cleaning work; he worked in the cafeteria, served food, and was assigned to areas requiring contact with children. Stating that the personnel had no MEB record, the mother said, “If a personnel member who was not in the Ministry of National Education records had not been employed at this college and had not been allowed to have contact with children, these things would not have happened.”

EXPERT: IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHILD TO BE INTERVIEWED AGAIN

In the psychological evaluation report dated January 23, 2025, submitted to the İstanbul Anadolu 8th Criminal Court of First Instance, it was stated that the child has been receiving pedagogical support since May 2024. The mother said that the expert appointed by the court came to the family home to make an assessment and met with the child.

The report stated that communication could be established during the meeting with the child, but the child showed signs of discomfort and avoidance when the allegations subject to the case were brought up. It was noted that asking about the allegations repeatedly could trigger the existing trauma and negatively affect the therapy process.

The expert concluded that it was not appropriate for the child's emotional and psychosocial development to testify again, taking into account that she had already been interviewed in detail at the Child Monitoring Center in the presence of experts and at a date closer to the events. If the court deems a re-interview mandatory, it was recommended that the statement be taken in a Forensic Interview Room in the presence of an expert.

“FAMILIES OF THE CHILDREN WHO WITNESSED THE EVENT WERE NOT INTERVIEWED”

The mother stated that in the session before the hearing dated June 17, 2025, it was said that the families of the children who were stated to have witnessed what her daughter experienced at the college would be interviewed. She said that the children were also at the courthouse with their families on the day of the hearing, but the statements of the witness families were not taken.

The mother said, “The children were there too, but the people we wanted to be interviewed in court were their families. Despite this, the judge said, 'I have a headache today, I will not interview the witnesses. I have already made my decision,' and did not take the statements of the witness families.”

THE FIRST PROSECUTOR OF THE FILE WAS CHANGED

According to the information provided by the family to 12punto, the prosecutor who worked on the file in the first stage of the investigation was Muhammed Çağatay Kılıçarslan. Later, the prosecutor of the file was changed.

Kılıçarslan was detained and subsequently arrested on January 13, 2026, on the grounds that he shot and wounded Judge Aslı Kahraman, who worked at the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 23rd Criminal Chamber. According to information reflected in the press, Kılıçarslan had also served in the Bureau for the Prevention of Violence Against Women within the İstanbul Anadolu Chief Public Prosecutor's Office between 2022 and 2024.

The mother stated that the judge who presided over the hearing on June 17, 2025, is no longer working on the file and has been assigned to another city.

FOOTAGE COULD NOT BE OBTAINED FROM CAMERA DISKS

One of the most debated topics in the file was the school's camera recordings. The family summarized the result of the expert examination with the words, “One of the disks was broken, the other turned out to be empty.” According to the report, analyses were performed to find or recover the footage, but the requested footage could not be obtained. Since there was no audio in the recordings, an audio analysis could not be performed either.

On April 29, 2025, the İstanbul Anadolu 8th Criminal Court of First Instance decided to send the disks to the Gendarmerie Criminal Department for more detailed examination and to transfer the data within them. The current expert report reveals that the footage could not be obtained; however, it does not contain a definitive finding regarding who deleted the recordings and by what method, or whether the disks were intentionally damaged.

The family wants an explanation of where the camera footage of the day of the incident is and why it still cannot be obtained.

CAMERA RECORDINGS WERE DELIVERED FOUR DAYS LATER DESPITE PROSECUTOR'S INSTRUCTION

The mother said that after the suspect was arrested, the prosecutor's office gave instructions to the police to collect the camera recordings. She alleged that the police went to the college on Thursday, but left without taking the disks after the branch management said the technical team was not available.

The mother stated that the two hard disks were brought to the police station four days later, on Monday, by the college's accountant. She demanded an explanation of where the disks were kept during this time, who had them, and whether any processing was done on them.

DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED WITH JUDICIAL CONTROL CONDITIONS IN JUNE 2025

The mother said that at the second hearing held in June 2025, it was decided to release the defendant and try him without arrest. She stated that judicial control measures including a restraining order, the obligation to sign in every day, and a travel ban were applied to the defendant. In the next hearing, it was decided to continue the trial without arrest.

The mother stated that the trial process was prolonged due to the examinations regarding the camera footage:

“The hearings were constantly postponed because the camera footage could not be resolved. Witnesses were interviewed, but the camera recordings are still nowhere to be found. This person is still on the street. If the allegations against him are proven at the end of the trial, we want him to receive the necessary punishment.”

“I WAS THREATENED BY THE ŞERİFALİ BRANCH MANAGEMENT”

The mother alleged that she was threatened by the school administration after the incident and was pressured not to share the footage with the public:

“Throughout this whole process, I was threatened by the school administration. They said things to me like, 'If you publish the video somewhere, look what we will do to you,' 'There is no recording for you,' 'If you want, go and complain about us, this is Sevinç College.'”

Stating that she learned that various statements were used about her after she informed other parents, the mother continued her words as follows:

“I heard that things were said like, 'The mother's psychology is broken,' 'One of her children died, she is already a problematic woman,' 'Others might have done this,' and 'They might be doing this for money.' If they say I am slandering, let them prove it. Every sentence I say has a counterpart in official documents.”

“THEY DID NOT ASK ABOUT OUR CHILD'S CONDITION EVEN ONCE”

The mother alleged that the General Directorate of Sevinç Educational Institutions offered to cover her daughter's therapy expenses and the educational expenses of her two children, including university; however, in exchange for these offers, they wanted the name “Sevinç College” not to be used in public statements.

The mother said that her family did not request money, educational support, therapy expenses, or any other financial benefit and did not accept the offers made.

The mother stated that her daughter's condition was not asked about even once by the general directorate, whereas she reached out to the general directorate many times and said, “our only request is the camera recordings.”

MOTHER: “WE ENTRUSTED OUR CHILD NOT TO AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, BUT TO THE SEVİNÇ COLLEGE BRAND”

The mother said that they enrolled their daughter in the school trusting the “Sevinç College” name on the building, the sign, and the contract, and the brand's history. She argued that the explanation that the school is a franchise business does not eliminate the brand's audit responsibility.

The mother alleged that the general directorate and the Şerifali branch were in communication and cooperation during the period when the events took place, and that education coordinators from the headquarters regularly took care of the branch.

She said that the subsequent termination of the franchise contract does not change the fact that the school was operating under the Sevinç College brand at the time of the incident.

SEVİNÇ EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: THE SCHOOL WAS AN INDEPENDENT FRANCHISE BUSINESS

12punto asked Sevinç Educational Institutions about the mother's allegations regarding threats and the offer to cover educational expenses, the status of the camera recordings, and the allegation that personnel were employed without registration.

Sevinç Educational Institutions General Directorate announced that the school where the incident occurred was not directly operated by the general directorate; it was an independent business operating under a franchise agreement by Enba Education Company. It was stated that the owner and authorized person of the business is Sertan Şahin.

In the statement, it was noted that communication was established with the family from the moment the incident was reported to them, meetings were held with the family's lawyers, and written and verbal explanations were requested from the franchise operator many times. The general directorate stated that the correspondence, e-mails, WhatsApp conversations, and meeting notes in the process are preserved and that they are ready to share these records with 12punto face-to-face if necessary.

RESPONSE TO THREAT AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENSE OFFER

Sevinç Educational Institutions argued that the addressee of the allegations of threats and the offer to cover educational expenses is the franchise operator:

“The addressee of the allegations in question is the relevant franchise operator. Sevinç Educational Institutions has no instructions or involvement in this direction.”

The general directorate stated that upon the mother's complaints, franchise managers were warned many times in writing and verbally to fulfill their duty of care and attention while communicating with the family. The statement also argued that a legal dispute based on the allegation of threat or insult was not brought to the general directorate or the public.

“WE REQUESTED THAT THE RECORDINGS BE SUBMITTED TO JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES”

The general directorate stated that the operation of the camera system and the protection of the recordings are under the operational responsibility of the franchise operator.

According to the statement, in a meeting held at the general directorate with the franchise operator on June 1, 2024, a footage showing the moment the parent and students entered the school was watched from the operator's mobile phone. The general directorate asked the operator to send all the footage in his possession to them and to submit it to the judicial authorities.

It was stated that the franchise operator reported in an e-mail dated June 8, 2024, that he had delivered the originals of the camera recordings to the police and therefore could not transmit the footage to the general directorate.

Sevinç Educational Institutions stated that the expert report was sent to them by the family's lawyer on May 11, 2026, and interpreted the report as “the delivered hard disks were broken and empty, therefore the recordings could not be examined.”

The technical statements in the expert report are that one of the disks could not be read due to a mechanical failure, there was no video recording on the other, and the requested footage could not be obtained despite the analyses performed.

“THERE WERE NO PRIOR FINDINGS OR REPORTS REGARDING UNREGISTERED PERSONNEL”

Sevinç Educational Institutions reported that processes such as personnel employment, SGK (Social Security Institution) obligations, personnel transactions, security measures, and the protection of camera recordings are under the responsibility of the franchise operator.

The general directorate stated that it does not have the authority to actually audit SGK records like the MEB and other public institutions, and made the following statement:

“There are no findings or reports detected by our General Directorate regarding the employment of unregistered personnel during the period when our brand was used.”

In the statement, it was argued that the legal addressees of the ongoing judicial processes are the company operating the school and the people being tried.

FRANCHISE CONTRACT TERMINATED

Sevinç Educational Institutions reported that the court decision given for the crime of neglect of duty regarding school officials and the expert report regarding the inability to access camera recordings reached the general directorate on May 11, 2026.

It was announced that the board of directors terminated the franchise contract one day later, on May 12, 2026, and removed the school's right to use the Sevinç College brand. The institution explained that the contract was not terminated earlier by waiting for the official documents that would form the necessary legal basis for the transaction.

Sevinç Educational Institutions also announced that the brand license of the Ümraniye Şerifali school was terminated in a public statement published on the same date.

The mother alleged that the school in question continues its educational activities under a different name. This allegation could not be independently verified by 12punto.

MOTHER'S CALL TO MINISTER OF JUSTICE AKIN GÜRLEK: “THE STRUCTURE WE ARE FACING IS VERY POWERFUL, I AM ONLY A MOTHER”

The next hearing of the case will be held on September 25, 2026, at 10:15 at the İstanbul Anadolu Courthouse 8th Criminal Court of First Instance. The mother stated that they expect the prosecutor to announce his opinion on the merits at the hearing.

Addressing Minister of Justice Akın Gürlek, the mother said, “Mr. Minister, we want justice. Please support us and take ownership of our case. The case, which has been ongoing since May 2024, has not yet been concluded. The actual camera recordings are still nowhere to be found. Please hear our voice.”

Calling for support from the public and institutions working in the field of children's rights, the mother concluded her words as follows:

“The structure we are facing is very powerful; I am only a mother fighting for her child. I want children's rights organizations, bar associations, non-governmental organizations, the press, and the public to be by our side. I call on everyone who believes in justice to support our hearing on September 25. Witnesses were interviewed, but the camera recordings are not there. Every sentence I say has an official document. We want them to support us. My agony does not cease.”

Since the trial is ongoing, the accusations against the defendant do not constitute a finalized court decision. The defendant has denied the accusations throughout the investigation and prosecution.

News Source: Sinem Nazlı Demir