Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 19:33:46 GMT -8
Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd Civil Chamber, 08.04.2013, 2012/22151 E., 2013/9689 K. In the concrete case, within the scope of the entire file, the common child of the parties, Yasemin, born in 2008, who was of cognitive age at the time of the trial, declared that she wanted to stay with her father in her statement taken before the court and accompanied by an expert. There is no issue that is contrary to the child's interests and that his/her preferences and opinions should not be given importance. It has not been proven that there is a situation that prevents the plaintiff father from exercising his right to custody. In the face of this situation, considering the best interests of the joint child Yasemin, the custody should have been left to the plaintiff father, but it was not found appropriate to leave it to the defendant mother and it required reversal.
Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd France Telegram Number Data Civil Chamber, 12.10.2020, 2020/2825 E., 2020/4588 K. It was stated that the plaintiff-counterdefendant mother, who was given custody, stated in her meeting with the expert witness that the common child actually remained with the father, that she would not take the child with her, but that she would not give custody of the child to the father, and it was decided to give custody to the father as a precaution.
It has been understood that the plaintiff-counterdefendant mother actually left the common child to the father and the child still remains with the father. Custody of the joint child is determined in Articles 182 and 336/2 of the Turkish Civil Code. While it should have been left to the father in accordance with the articles, leaving it to the mother's custody was against the procedure and law and required reversal. Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd Civil Chamber, 17.10.2018, 2016/24488 E., 2018/11293 K.
Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd France Telegram Number Data Civil Chamber, 12.10.2020, 2020/2825 E., 2020/4588 K. It was stated that the plaintiff-counterdefendant mother, who was given custody, stated in her meeting with the expert witness that the common child actually remained with the father, that she would not take the child with her, but that she would not give custody of the child to the father, and it was decided to give custody to the father as a precaution.
It has been understood that the plaintiff-counterdefendant mother actually left the common child to the father and the child still remains with the father. Custody of the joint child is determined in Articles 182 and 336/2 of the Turkish Civil Code. While it should have been left to the father in accordance with the articles, leaving it to the mother's custody was against the procedure and law and required reversal. Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd Civil Chamber, 17.10.2018, 2016/24488 E., 2018/11293 K.