In re Yaman and Yaman

Ismael Yaman (plaintiff), a citizen of Turkey, and Linda Yaman (defendant), a citizen of the United States, had two children, K.Y. and E.Y., and resided in Turkey. Linda began to suspect that Ismael was sexually abusing K.Y. and petitioned the Turkish family court for divorce. The court conducted the proceedings in the regular manner of the Turkish courts, but the proceedings did not meet the standard of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Linda was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, but she did not speak fluent Turkish, and counsel did not speak English. Linda did not have simultaneous translation throughout all the proceedings. The court appointed several experts to evaluate Linda’s accusations of sexual abuse, but Linda was not allowed to obtain discovery about the experts or challenge their reports. Ismael and Linda were permitted to submit evidence, but Linda was not permitted to present her story to the court. Linda was not allowed to challenge the admissibility of hearsay, challenge witnesses’ bias, or cross-examine Ismael. The Turkish court found that Ismael had not sexually abused K.Y. and ordered sole legal custody of K.Y. and E.Y. to Ismael and parenting time to Linda. Linda appealed to the Turkey Supreme Court of Appeals twice and lost both times. Linda absconded with K.Y. and E.Y. and eventually moved to New Hampshire. After unsuccessfully litigating a repatriation petition in federal court, Ismael petitioned the New Hampshire Circuit Court for enforcement of the Turkish custody order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Linda argued that the New Hampshire court should not recognize the Turkish order because the Turkish proceedings did not meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause, denying her the opportunity to be heard (OTBH). The New Hampshire court found that Linda had the OTBH in the Turkish court, registered the Turkish order, and ordered K.Y. and E.Y. to be returned to Ismael’s custody in Turkey. Linda appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. She did not argue that the Turkish court was biased against her, but she argued that she did not have the OTBH in the Turkish court because the proceedings did not meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause and thus the New Hampshire court should not recognize the Turkish order.