Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 5:06:39 GMT
There is no serious reason or evidence that the child's stay with the father will hinder the child's physical, intellectual and moral development. In that case, although the custody of the joint child should be given to the father, it was not found correct to make a written decision. 2nd HD., 17.10.2016, 2016/17842 E., 2016/13832 K. The joint children stayed with the defendant father during the continuation of the trial and stated that they wanted to stay with their father at the hearing . Experts whose opinions were consulted also stated in their reports that custody should be given to the father. It is also clear that separating minors from each other will have a negative impact on their physical and intellectual development. On the other hand, it is understood that after the decision, the joint child UM, whose custody was given to the mother with the report dated 18.6.2009, was handed over to the father by the mother.
In the face of this situation, custody of UM, born France Telegram Number Data in 2001, should have been given to the defendant father; It was not found correct to make a decision in written form. Supreme Court 2nd HD. 10.02.2011, 2010/21295 E., 2011/2074 K. The mutual child ... i There is no serious reason or evidence that the child's stay with the father will hinder the child's physical, intellectual and moral development. In that case, although the custody of the joint child should be given to the father, it was not found correct to make a written decision. Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd HD., 17.10.2016, 2016/17842 E., 2016/13832 K. The joint children stayed with the defendant father during the continuation of the trial and stated that they wanted to stay with their father at the hearing . Experts whose opinions were consulted also stated in their reports that custody should be given to the father.
It is also clear that separating minors from each other will have a negative impact on their physical and intellectual development. On the other hand, it is understood that after the decision, the joint child UM, whose custody was given to the mother with the report dated 18.6.2009, was handed over to the father by the mother. In the face of this situation, custody of UM, born in 2001, should have been given to the defendant father; It was not found correct to make a decision in written form. Supreme Court 2nd HD. 10.02.2011, 2010/21295 E., 2011/2074 K. The mutual child ... i
In the face of this situation, custody of UM, born France Telegram Number Data in 2001, should have been given to the defendant father; It was not found correct to make a decision in written form. Supreme Court 2nd HD. 10.02.2011, 2010/21295 E., 2011/2074 K. The mutual child ... i There is no serious reason or evidence that the child's stay with the father will hinder the child's physical, intellectual and moral development. In that case, although the custody of the joint child should be given to the father, it was not found correct to make a written decision. Supreme Court of Appeals 2nd HD., 17.10.2016, 2016/17842 E., 2016/13832 K. The joint children stayed with the defendant father during the continuation of the trial and stated that they wanted to stay with their father at the hearing . Experts whose opinions were consulted also stated in their reports that custody should be given to the father.
It is also clear that separating minors from each other will have a negative impact on their physical and intellectual development. On the other hand, it is understood that after the decision, the joint child UM, whose custody was given to the mother with the report dated 18.6.2009, was handed over to the father by the mother. In the face of this situation, custody of UM, born in 2001, should have been given to the defendant father; It was not found correct to make a decision in written form. Supreme Court 2nd HD. 10.02.2011, 2010/21295 E., 2011/2074 K. The mutual child ... i