Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 10:28:07 GMT 5.5
In terms of the case of changing the custody of the joint child of the defendant-plaintiff mother; It was not proven that there was a situation, event, change in circumstances and conditions that required a change of custody within the period between the custody being given to the father and the date the case was filed, or that the father did not fulfill or abused his custody duty, and that the defendant-plaintiff mother witnesses did not have eye-based information, therefore their statements could not be relied upon. It is stated that there is no serious and convincing evidence that the parties' joint child staying with the father will prevent the child's physical, intellectual and moral development, and the existence of an immediate danger has not been proven. The rejection of the case was ruled by the court's interim decision no.
7 of the memorandum of action dated 01/08/2016, "between France Telegram Number Data the joint child K1, born on 03/06/2010, and the defendant mother, on the 1st and 3rd Sundays of each month, at 09:00, if they are in the same city. It has been decided that the injunction order "to establish a precautionary personal relationship between 16:00 and 09:00 to 16:00 on the last Sunday of each month, under the supervision of the plaintiff K2 or his relative, if they are in different cities" will continue until the case is finalized. Ankara Regional Court of Justice, 1st Civil Chamber, 2018/354 E., In terms of the case of changing the custody of the joint child of the defendant-plaintiff mother; It was not proven that there was a situation, event, change in circumstances and conditions that required a change of custody within the period between the custody being given to the father and the date the case was filed, or that the father did not fulfill or abused his custody duty, and that the defendant-plaintiff mother witnesses did not have eye-based information, therefore their statements could not be relied upon.
It is stated that there is no serious and convincing evidence that the parties' joint child staying with the father will prevent the child's physical, intellectual and moral development, and the existence of an immediate danger has not been proven. The rejection of the case was ruled by the court's interim decision no. 7 of the memorandum of action dated 01/08/2016, "between the joint child K1, born on 03/06/2010, and the defendant mother, on the 1st and 3rd Sundays of each month, at 09:00, if they are in the same city. It has been decided that the injunction order "to establish a precautionary personal relationship between 16:00 and 09:00 to 16:00 on the last Sunday of each month, under the supervision of the plaintiff K2 or his relative, if they are in different cities" will continue until the case is finalized. Ankara Regional Court of Justice, 1st Civil Chamber, 2018/354 E.,
7 of the memorandum of action dated 01/08/2016, "between France Telegram Number Data the joint child K1, born on 03/06/2010, and the defendant mother, on the 1st and 3rd Sundays of each month, at 09:00, if they are in the same city. It has been decided that the injunction order "to establish a precautionary personal relationship between 16:00 and 09:00 to 16:00 on the last Sunday of each month, under the supervision of the plaintiff K2 or his relative, if they are in different cities" will continue until the case is finalized. Ankara Regional Court of Justice, 1st Civil Chamber, 2018/354 E., In terms of the case of changing the custody of the joint child of the defendant-plaintiff mother; It was not proven that there was a situation, event, change in circumstances and conditions that required a change of custody within the period between the custody being given to the father and the date the case was filed, or that the father did not fulfill or abused his custody duty, and that the defendant-plaintiff mother witnesses did not have eye-based information, therefore their statements could not be relied upon.
It is stated that there is no serious and convincing evidence that the parties' joint child staying with the father will prevent the child's physical, intellectual and moral development, and the existence of an immediate danger has not been proven. The rejection of the case was ruled by the court's interim decision no. 7 of the memorandum of action dated 01/08/2016, "between the joint child K1, born on 03/06/2010, and the defendant mother, on the 1st and 3rd Sundays of each month, at 09:00, if they are in the same city. It has been decided that the injunction order "to establish a precautionary personal relationship between 16:00 and 09:00 to 16:00 on the last Sunday of each month, under the supervision of the plaintiff K2 or his relative, if they are in different cities" will continue until the case is finalized. Ankara Regional Court of Justice, 1st Civil Chamber, 2018/354 E.,