“47. In terms of the allegations of domestic abuse, again, I note that these are summary proceedings in which oral evidence has not been heard, and the court is not invited to make findings having heard oral evidence. In accordance with the Supreme Court guidance, the court must take the allegations at their highest, albeit being satisfied that there is, nevertheless, credible or cogent evidence of the alleged abuse. 48. In terms of the allegations and the evidence Mother has filed in support, I first of all note that a number of the allegations made by Mother date back a number of years, indeed to before Zoe was born. In so far as those allegations relate to disputes and arguments around the wedding and aggressive behaviours at the time of her birth, they are of doubtful relevance in terms of the forward-looking analysis this court must undertake regarding the circumstances of her return to Turkey. I also note a very serious allegation of rape when Mother was heavily pregnant. That was an allegation from some ten years ago. That does not, of course, in any way undermine or minimise the seriousness of an allegation of rape, but what this court must be mindful of is that the mother’s statement does not suggest there has been any repeated sexual abuse or allegations of rape thereafter, and, given the passage of time and a further ten years of marriage, the court again, without questioning the seriousness of the allegation, must question its ongoing relevance to the safety and welfare of Zoe upon a return to Turkey. 49. Turning to the allegations of physical abuse, Mother alleges that there has been physical abuse throughout the relationship, resulting in injuries and bruising, and she has exhibited photographs of injuries which she says were caused approximately four years ago. In her statement, she identifies some specific incidents of physical harm and is able to give approximate dates and timescales. She says that the applicant would frequently hit, kick and punch her, and would target areas where bruising was less visible. She says that she was pushed on numerous occasions, that Father would throw objects across the room, such as plates, cause property damage by smashing items and frequently hitting and kicking doors in rage. She also makes specific allegations that the applicant father tried to strangle her on a couple of occasions. 50. One such incident, she says, was witnessed by Zoe when she was approximately four years old. This was an occasion in 2019, when the father dragged her out of the bedroom in the middle of the night, accused her of being drunk, was aggressive, put a broken bottle to her neck, threatened to stick it in her throat whilst screaming at her, pinned her against the wall and threatened to beat her up. She says that he has also attempted to push her and that she was forced to run and hide in the bedroom. 51. She also identifies another incident, she says, in 2022. On this occasion, she says the applicant threatened to beat her up, took Zoe and she had to run to her friend’s house until the father calmed down. 52. She also gives evidence of a third specific occasion, this being the precipitating incident which led to her leaving the father and the family home and coming to this jurisdiction. She said that in early March 2025 there was a dispute over Father’s dinner not being ready, that he began shouting and physically assaulted her. She says he punched her, was forcing her around the kitchen and cornered her; he caused significant bruising to her arm and, again, Zoe witnessed this incident and was distressed. She says that it was this incident that led her to decide that she could not stay in Turkey with the father and determined that she must leave. 53. She also gives evidence of controlling behaviour throughout the relationship, with Father dictating what she could wear, what she should look like and who she was able to see and monitoring her social media accounts. 54. The mother alleges that there were several aggressive incidents which she suggests were underpinned by Father suffering, at times, from depression and having mental health difficulties. As I have noted, she also suggests that the applicant brought a gun and bullets into the family home, claiming it was for protection, but was used against her in terms of an implied threat. 55. She also gives evidence of emotional manipulation. She says that, throughout the relationship, the applicant would threaten suicide, particularly when she refused to give him money. In support of that, she exhibits photos and messages of implied threats of suicide. She says that these incidents were part of a broader pattern of emotional manipulation which left her in a position of fear and anxiety and bearing an overwhelming sense of responsibility for Father’s mental wellbeing. 56. Finally, she details within her statement allegations of financial abuse. She alleges that the father rarely contributed to the household income and that the little money which he did have he spent on drugs. She asserts he owed significant amounts to various people which led to his own accounts being frozen. She said any funds that he did have were used to cover debts and therefore he had to use her accounts to receive payments for his business. She says that he could access these accounts and funds were withdrawn in cash or transferred to friends, and she was the one who was left bearing the burden of paying for household expenses, for rent, for groceries and bills. 57. As I have noted, those allegations, as detailed within the mother’s witness statement, are completely denied by the father. In his response to those allegations, the father notes that there is very little by way of any corroborating evidence for the allegations that Mother makes. 58. In terms of any corroborating evidence, Mother says within her statement that she has been unable to provide evidence gathered over the years in terms of photographs and so forth because they were stored on a mobile phone and Zoe’s tablet, which Father has managed to reset on a factory reset online program and, as a result of that, that evidence has been lost. Regardless of the truth of that explanation, the position of this court is one in which there has been little filed in terms of corroborating evidence. Some photographs of bruising have been exhibited to Mother’s statement, but the court notes that those photographs are unidentified in terms of date, time and any identifying features of the individual, the location of the bruising or body part affected. Therefore, in terms of corroborating evidence, the photographs are of no assistance in terms of assisting in the veracity of the mother’s allegation. 59. In terms of the allegation of financial abuse, again, I note that Mother has provided no financial documentation to support her allegations of financial abuse, documents in terms of bank statements which would evidence the flow of money in and out of the family’s accounts. 60. I note there is some limited support for some of her allegations in exhibited text messages, in particular regarding the threat of suicide, but otherwise there is nothing from exhibited text messages to support allegations of physical or financial abuse; nor have social media or text messages been exhibited which evidence concern regarding the dynamics of the parents’ relationship or which may exhibit evidence of coercive and controlling behaviours by Father. 61. I also note that there have been no contemporaneous reports to police or health authorities in Turkey that Mother has evidenced which would support contemporaneous reporting of the abuse she says she experienced. Nor has Mother provided corroborating evidence that she sought support from domestic abuse support services in Turkey. I do, however, of course, remind myself that the absence of contemporaneous reports to police and other authorities is not unusual for victims of domestic abuse. 62. In terms of evaluating the evidence, I also have to weigh and balance that there is some evidence that positively undermines the mother’s allegations. Father, to his witness account, has exhibited a signed declaration in Turkey that, despite his entitlement to possess a firearm, he does not intend to do so. He has also produced evidence of his financial position, including his business registration, which remains ongoing, income from his business and also the family’s olive farm, and text messages which evidence him confirming making various payments in financial support of the family. Those pieces of evidence positively undermine Mother’s account of financial abuse, of Father having made no financial contribution to the family or having squandered his money on a drug addiction. 63. The court also notes that, in terms of the mother’s allegations of coercive and controlling behaviours, Mother evidently has been able to travel freely and independently from Father, including spending holiday time in the United Kingdom, and was able to do so with his evident agreement and support. 64. However, in weighing and considering the evidence before the court on the allegations of domestic abuse, this court does note that Zoe, in her first meeting with Ms Gwynne, described abusive behaviours by Father which she, herself, had experienced in the family home. Zoe says to Ms Gwynne that she did not like the way that her father acted around her mother. Zoe describes that he would hit her and describes an incident in the home when Father was angry that his dinner had not been made and she described Father kneeing Mother’s shoulder, causing a big bruise, and describes that she, herself, was scared. 65. She also describes, in terms of her experiences, that when Mother tried to stand up for herself, Father got angrier and would shout a lot, and she, when asked what the worst thing that had happened in her childhood was, describes how, when she was six or seven, Mum and Dad were arguing and she saw her dad grab a small knife and hit her mother with the side of the knife. She also describes one occasion when she says she was accidentally hit by a door. 66. The court, therefore, has to weigh, in terms of Mother’s accounts of domestic abuse, that Zoe also describes in her work with the Cafcass officer childhood experiences which are of abusive conduct within the family home, to which she has directly been exposed. 67. In terms of what the extent of those experiences and issues may have been, I also note again, however, the evidence from the school in Turkey that they have had no concerns about Zoe’s presentation at school giving any indication to them of any significant problems at home impacting upon her happiness and welfare. I also note, in terms of the wishes and feelings work, and also from the supervised contact sessions, that Zoe does not exhibit any fear or anxiety around her father, that she describes and exhibits having a strong relationship with her dad and that she misses him. 68. I also, in weighing the evidence and evaluating it, note that Father, whilst denying the abuse, does accept in his witness statement recalling an incident occurring in early March of 2025 concerning dinner arrangements, albeit his account was that that was to do with ensuring regular mealtimes for Zoe. He does accept that, during that incident, there was screaming. He says Mother was screaming and shouting – and that she was shouting, “Get off me, get off me”
“Article 13(b) requires the parent opposing a child’s return to establish that there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. Where that parent asserts that they will not accompany the child to return, the court will scrutinise the assertion closely because it is an unusual one for a main carer of a young child to make. The Court will therefore make a reasoned assessment of the degree of likelihood of the parent not returning. Relevant considerations will no doubt include the overall circumstances, the family history, any professional advice about the parent’s health, the reasons given for not returning, the possibility that the refusal is tactical, and the chance of the position changing after an order is made. The court will then factor its conclusion on this issue into its overall assessment of the refusing parent’s claim to have satisfied Article 13(b). By this means, it will seek to ensure that the operation of the Convention is neither neutralised by tactical manoeuvring nor insufficiently responsive to genuine vulnerability…. The court is assessing likelihood on a summary basis, not finding facts.”