Case Update (14 April 2026): Hundur v. Hundur; steps towards potential relocation not acquiescence

The parties are parents to a minor child born on July 26, 2023 in Istanbul. Throughout their relationship, they were on-again, off-again. The parties moved in together in June 2023, shortly before the child’s birth, in Istanbul. During the parties relationship prior to their child’s birth, and after, the parties discussed a potential move to the USA. Their relationship, however, was “marred by volatility and, at times, physical violence.” The court noted that they “often got into arguments in which they raised their voices and used profanity towards one another.” Despite the volatility, they decided to marry. They married on July 12, 2024, and planned a trip to the USA for that fall. The couple separated in August 2024, discussed divorce, and the Father cancelled the trip to the USA. The Mother nonetheless requested permission to go to the USA with the child, and the Father told the Mother that the child would “not be going anywhere.” The couple then reconciled a few days later, and the Father agreed to let the child travel to the Atlanta Georgia area. He purchased the Mother and child one-way plane tickets from Istanbul, signed a travel consent form, and purchased two months of temporary travel insurance for the child. He did not pack up their apartment and did not rent an apartment in Georgia. He remained in Istanbul. At trial, the Mother testified that she believed “the couple had agreed to permanently move to the U.S.” She stated, in uncorroborated testimony, that the Father was planning on joining them later in the month, where they would then tour different states and decide where to live. There was text message evidence presented by the Father seemingly indicating that he believed the trip to the U.S. was for at least one month, but potentially up to three months or so.

The Mother and child flew to Atlanta on September 1, 2024. Later that month, the Father, in Istanbul, had a sudden brain aneurysm, which left him hospitalized and unable to travel. In October 2024, he asked the Mother when they were returning, to which she replied that she was setting up her life in the USA. She requested a divorce, and, on November 4, 2024, the Father submitted an application to return the child with the Turkish Ministry of Justice. In December 2024, the Mother filed an application for asylum. The Father, once cleared to travel, made a series of trips to Atlanta to spend time with the child, including time alone with the child. He also paid for household expenses and the child’s expenses. In a late May 2025 trip, he and the Mother were on good terms, and began functioning as coparents. They enrolled the child in daycare and swim school and took him to a pediatrician. They also became romantic again and discussed expanding their family. He registered an LLC in Georgia and made inquiries about permanent residency through his business. He discussed the possibility of moving to the U.S. in January 2026. They never materialized, in part due to shifting economic conditions and increased tariffs. In June 2025, the Father returned to Turkey, and the parties’ relationship deteriorated again. A few weeks later, the Father filed for divorce in Turkey. The Mother then obtained a protective order against the Father. He then filed his petition to return the child to Turkey in July 2025 in Georgia, which was eventually transferred to Virginia because the Mother and child had moved there.

The Mother’s argument that returning the child would expose him to a grave risk of harm did not succeed. The court found there were no credible allegations that the child himself has been subjected to violence or abuse, nor was there any clear evidence that the child has been psychologically harmed. While the Mother had an expert that argued the child experienced major life trauma, her findings were “based in large part on evidence that was not introduced at the evidentiary hearing or is irrelevant to the Court’s analysis.” There was also no evidence that any abuse would continue into the future. The Court also concluded that the Father did not consent to the child’s permanent relocation at the time the child left Turkey. The Mother also argued that after the child’s relocation, the Father acquiesced to said relocation with a “consistent attitude” for six months in early 2025 - his visits, financial support, efforts to enroll the child in daycare, swim school, and therapy, inquiries into permanent residency, the business he established, and his voicemails contemplating a future in the USA. The court stated, however, that “a petitioning parent’s efforts to remain involved in his child’s life do not usually amount to acquiescence.” The court found that the rest of the steps taken by the Father in Georgia were more akin to working with the Mother towards a resolution, and not unequivocal acquiescence. The court equated this family’s situation more to that of conditional consent - the child would be permitted to move abroad only if the petitioner was able to join them.

The child is ordered returned to Turkey.