Sinem Nazlı Demir
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 Şerifali, in Istanbul's Ümraniye district, which operated under the Sevinç Koleji 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 part of what happened, 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 the elderly janitor they saw in the schoolyard was waiting at the gate to welcome the children, 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 welcome the children. As I entered the schoolyard with my daughter, she saw the man, got very scared, and immediately clung 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 also tried to ask my daughter what was wrong, but I didn'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 yelled at the children in the cafeteria one day, and that my daughter was scared of him because of that. 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 yell 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 did to her. I was shocked by what I heard.”
The mother said that she could not record the first time her daughter told her, but during the second conversation, she recorded what was said on video and sent it to a pedagogue. She stated that the pedagogue suggested they apply to the prosecutor's office without delay, noting that there were serious findings of violence and abuse in the accounts.
THE COLLEGE SUSPENDED THE STAFF MEMBER 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 stated 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 camera footage.
The mother, however, said that after notifying the school administration, they consulted a pedagogue and the child began 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 emphasized that at the meeting, they wanted to show her about 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 at 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 staff member 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.
THE 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. (Details of the statement are not included in the report to protect the child's privacy and best interests.)
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 case 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 YELLED AT THE CHILD IN THE CAFETERIA
In his statement to law enforcement 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 argued that he did not know the child and had never been in the cafeteria. However, it was recorded in the official report prepared by the college administration that the defendant was in the cafeteria, admitted to yelling 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 claim. The mother said that all school fees were paid through the bank 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 STAFF MEMBER WAS NOT IN 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 details regarding the reasons for the penalties or 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 staff member 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 staff member had no MEB record, the mother said, “If a staff 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 pedagogue support since May 2024. The mother said that the expert appointed by the court came to the family home to make an assessment and interviewed the child.
The report stated that communication could be established during the interview with the child, but that 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 the child 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 necessary, it was recommended that the statement be taken in the Forensic Interview Room in the presence of an expert.
“THE FAMILIES OF THE CHILDREN WHO SAW THE INCIDENT 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 CHANGED
According to the information the family gave 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 changed.
Kılıçarslan was detained 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, and was subsequently arrested. 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 also 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 carried out to find or recover the footage, but the desired footage could not be obtained. Since there was no audio in the recordings, an audio examination 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 take 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 wants an explanation of where the disks were kept during this time, whose hands they were in, and whether any processing was done.
THE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED IN JUNE 2025 WITH JUDICIAL CONTROL CONDITIONS
The mother said that in 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, an 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 examinations regarding the camera footage:
“The hearings were constantly postponed because the camera footage could not be analyzed. 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, 'What will we do to you if you publish the video somewhere,' 'There is no recording for you,' 'If you want, go and complain about us, this is Sevinç Koleji.'”
Stating that she learned that various statements were made 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 private school officials (Enba Eğitim Kurumları) offered to cover her daughter's therapy expenses and the educational expenses of her two children, including university.
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 video recordings.”
MOTHER: “WE DID NOT ENTRUST OUR CHILD TO AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, BUT TO THE SEVİNÇ KOLEJİ BRAND”
The mother said that they enrolled their daughter in the school trusting the name “Sevinç Koleji” on the building, the sign, and the contract, and the brand's history. She argued that the statement 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 Koleji brand at the time of the incident.
SEVİNÇ EĞİTİM KURUMLARI: THE SCHOOL WAS AN INDEPENDENT FRANCHISE BUSINESS
12punto asked Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları about the mother's allegations regarding threats and the offer to cover educational expenses, the status of the camera recordings, and the allegation that the staff member was employed without registration.
Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları General Directorate announced that the school where the incident occurred was not operated directly by the general directorate; it was an independent business operating under a franchise contract by Enba Eğitim Şirketi. 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 were preserved, and that they were ready to share these records with 12punto face-to-face if necessary.
RESPONSE TO THREAT AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENSE OFFER
Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları argued that the addressee of the allegations of threats and the offer to cover educational expenses is the franchise operator:
“The addressee of the mentioned allegations is the relevant franchise operator. Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları 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 an allegation of threat or insult was not conveyed 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 were 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 video 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 law enforcement and therefore could not forward the footage to the general directorate.
Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları 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, and 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 desired footage could not be obtained despite the analyses performed.
“THERE WERE NO PRIOR FINDINGS OR REPORTS REGARDING UNREGISTERED PERSONNEL”
Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları reported that processes such as personnel employment, SGK (Social Security Institution) obligations, personnel transactions, security measures, and the protection of camera recordings were under the responsibility of the franchise operator.
The general directorate stated that it did 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 Eğitim Kurumları reported that the court decision given against school officials for the crime of misconduct 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 Koleji 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 Eğitim Kurumları also announced in a public statement published on the same date that the brand license of the Ümraniye Şerifali school had been terminated.
The mother, on the other hand, 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 JUST 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 going on since May 2024, has still not 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 just 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 nowhere to be found. 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.
STATEMENT FROM THE LAWYER: "NOT SEVİNÇ KOLEJİ, BUT ENBA EĞİTİM KURUMLARI"
Regarding the details of the news, Sercan Efe from Sevinç Koleji Legal Consultancy contacted 12punto. Conveying the details about the process, Efe requested that some issues be corrected.
The statements of lawyer Sercan Efe are as follows.
In the news titled “Allegations of abuse and violence against a three-year-old child at Sevinç Koleji! Family requests support at the September 25 hearing” published on the 12punto.com.tr news site on 24.09.2026, the necessity of correcting the following issues has arisen in order to inform the public correctly.
The educational institution subject to the news is not a “branch” operated directly by Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları. The institution in question is an independent business operated by Enba Eğitim Şirketi within the scope of a franchise contract.
Characterizing the independent business that is a franchisee as a “branch” does not reflect the truth legally and in practice. It was also alleged in the news that the Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları General Directorate offered to cover the child's therapy expenses and the educational expenses of their children, including university, and in return, asked that the name “Sevinç Koleji” not be used in public statements. This allegation is absolutely contrary to the truth.
No offer has been made by the Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları General Directorate to the family to cover the child's therapy expenses, educational expenses, or any educational expenses of the family's other children, including university. The allegation that the use of the name “Sevinç Koleji” was requested in exchange for any financial offer in this direction is also untrue.
No penalty has been received by the managers of Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları, not a single bad word has been said to the parent by any of its staff, and no threat or similar sentence has been established. The sentence established in the news that the managers received a penalty is damaging to personal rights, abstract, and ambiguous. There is no staff member who received a penalty from Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları, and no staff member of Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları is being accused or tried.
Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları has been left under suspicion by not even specifying who received the penalty and who uttered the sentence aimed at the threat. Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları handled the issue with the maximum sensitivity that could be handled within the scope of the legislation upon the parent's complaint and terminated the franchise contract within “1” day from the moment it had a legal basis.
The school where the incident is alleged to have occurred and which is alleged by the parent to continue its activities has no relationship with Sevinç Eğitim Kurumları. Page 3 / 4KADIKÖY 13th NOTARY PUBLIC 25/09/2026 - 11373
Moreover, upon the questions directed to our institution by 12punto before the news was published, our explanations regarding the true nature of the incident, the franchise relationship, and the allegations were conveyed to the news organization in detail and in writing via e-mail. Although all the questions from your reporter named Sinem Nazlı Demir were shared in a transparent, complete, and enlightening manner, these answers were given very limited space in the presentation of the news and in subtexts that the reader cannot see. Respectfully announced to the public.”
News Source: Sinem Nazlı Demir
