Children Cannot Be Prevented From Seeing Each Other After Divorce
There are many problems that are solved by the court after the divorce. One of them is the custody and visitation of the children born in the marriage union. The custody of each of the children can be given to the mother or father according to the situation. If the siblings are given to different parents, no arrangement can be made so that the siblings cannot see each other. Even if the divorce is between the spouses, the children must also be protected. The development of a sense of brotherhood between children cannot be prevented. You can examine the Sample Court of Cassation Decision.
2nd Civil Chamber
Principal Number: 2020/3411
Decision Number: 2020/3968
“Case Law Text”
COURT : Samsun Regional Court of Justice 4th Civil Chamber
TYPE OF CASE : Mutual Divorce
At the end of the trial of the case between the parties, the judgement given by the civil chamber of the district court of justice, dated and numbered above, was appealed by the plaintiff-counter-defendant man in terms of fault determination, custody, alimony and compensation, and the documents were read and discussed:
1-According to the writings in the file, the fact that the procedure and research have been carried out in accordance with the reversal, there is no mistake in the appreciation of the evidence, and especially since the court did not rely on the fact that “he did not leave money at home”, which was attributed to the plaintiff-counter-defendant man as fault, it cannot be attributed to the man as fault, but according to the other faulty behaviours accepted and realised by the court, it is understood that the man is still fully at fault in the events that caused the divorce, the appellate objections of the plaintiff-counter-defendant man other than the scope of the following paragraph are unwarranted.
2- The custody of the parties’ joint children, Ali Kemal, born in 2010, was given to the father, and the custody of Pelin, born in 2013, was given to the mother, and a personal relationship was arranged so that the children could not see each other.
The plaintiff-counter-defendant father’s appeal request for custody was rejected by the regional court of justice. The arrangement of a personal relationship in such a way that the child whose custody is given to the mother and the child whose custody is given to the father cannot see each other is of a nature that will prevent the development of a sense of brotherhood between the children, and the personal relationship established every year during the semester break is of a nature that will create hesitation in execution. Since this issue does not require a retrial, this part of the judgement should be corrected and approved (Article 370/2 of the CCP).
CONCLUSION:
For the reason shown in subparagraph (2.) above, paragraph 3 of subparagraph B of the judgement paragraph of the appealed decision should be removed and replaced with “The personal relationship between the mother and the child, whose custody is given to the father, shall be from 09:00 on Saturday, which falls on the first and third week of each month, until 17:00 on Sunday, and from 10:00 on the first day of religious holidays until 9:00 on the second day. 00 until 9:00 on the second day, between 09:00 on 1 August and 17:00 on 15 August every year, from 09:00 on Monday in the first week of the semester break until 14:00 on Saturday from 09:00 on Monday in the first week of the semester break every year, to establish a personal relationship by personally picking up the children from the plaintiff father and handing them over at the end of the period.
By removing the words “from 09.00 on Saturday until 14.00 on Sunday at the end of the second week” from subparagraph 6 of paragraph B and replacing them with the words “from 09.00 on Monday at the end of the second week of the semester holidays every year until 11.00 on Saturday”, these parts of the judgement are upheld as amended, and the other parts subject to appeal are upheld for the reason shown above (1. It was unanimously decided to APPROVE for the reason shown in subparagraph (1. ) above, to return the pre-appeal fee to the depositor upon request, to send the file to the court of first instance, and a copy of the decision to the relevant regional court of appeal law department.21 .09.2020 (Wed.)
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.