Beryl's story

The abduction

In August 1995, Beryl, then aged five and a half, was abducted by her father, of Turkish nationality, at the end of the holydays they had spent together in France. Since then, they have been living in Istanbul (Turkey), in the father's family.
The same year, a French Court had passed a first sentence of divorce, the fault lying with the husband, Engin Kandemir, and given custody of Beryl to her mother, Pascale Limarola. The father's rights were totally respected by the French Court, inasmuch as it specified the joint parental rights (gardianship) and fixed for Engin Kandemir a right of access and of accomodation, in France, for a weekend out of two, and for half of all the school holydays. Both parents have strictly been borbidden to have Beryl leave the French territory.

The trial in Turkey

In 1995, on his arrival in Turkey, Engin Kandemir started, without Pascale Limarola's knowing, proceedings for a divorce asking for the fault to lie entirely on his wife's side. He obtained, in Turkey, custody of his daughter and exclusive parental authority without Pascale Limarola being informed.
The motive put forward by Engin Kandemir is that their daughter had suffered ill-treatment and sexual ill-treatment from her mother Pascale, as well as from her close relations. He puts forward the same pretext to justify Beryl's abduction.
Through these proceedings, which have been going on for three years, the father is trying to give of Pascale Limarola the image of a catholic, fanatic, lesbian French woman, living with several people and dishonouring her husband's name. Which, of course, is untrue. No evidence of these unfounded assertions has been supplied to the Turkish Law by the father, who calls as witnesses people that his wife has, for most of them, never met or to whom she has never directly spoken. These witnesses, when they came to Court, only repeated the father's statements.
Many questions arise about the reasons given by the father to justify Beryl's abduction:

• why has he never lodged a complaint against his wife to the French police for the ill-treatment and sexual ill-treatment suffered by Beryl ?
• why hasn't he referred to the judge for matrimonial affairs, who was in charge of the divorce proceedings, to ask for Beryl's custody ?
• why didn't he take Beryl to a doctor's and to a psychologist's before fleeing from France ?

These questions asked during the Turkish trial have not been annswered.

At the same time, Engin Kandemir appealed, in France (and from Turkey), against the decision pronounced in his disfavour, using the same motives as the ones he used to start proceedings in Turkey. Once more, he did not supply any proofs.
The French Court of Appeal confirmed, in 1996, the sentence passed in first instance and asked for Beryl's return.

The rights of access in Turkey

In 1996, that is nine months after Beryl's abduction, the Turkish law granted Pascale Limarola a right of access of 6 hours a month, during two afternoons.
For six months, she went to Istanbul once a month, to meet her daughter for only six hours.
In November 1996, this right was doubled. Since then, she has been going there once a month, at her own expense, to see Beryl for such little time and in unacceptable conditions: they meet in only one room, in the flat of one Engin's neighbours, in which upto eight other persons are with Beryl and her mother. They are not allowed to open the shutters, nor to go out for a walk. The filth of this place was by itself unacceptable.

These elements have been passed on to the Turkish law.
In October 1997, the Turkish judge visited, together with a psychologist, the flat in which Pascale Limarola has her right of access. This visit was announced three months before, which allowed all the needed time for the renovation of the place. It was repainted, the carpet was changed, the broken furniture repaired or replaced. Pascale added to the file the photos proving that the place was not in the state it was during the official visit.
A comparison was made with the house of a Franco-Turkish couple, which Pascale porposes in Istanbul to meet Beryl. The report, written by the psychologist, advises against the alteration of the place of the visit for the following reasons:

• the flat in which the right of access is exercised meets the Turkish and world building standards.
• the house which is proposed is too luxurious. Beryl might get accustomed to luxury and thus loose contact with reality.
• there are in this house too many imported toys.

These observations were made by a psychologist who is not the one following Beryl at the moment, and who knows neither the little girl's preoccupations, nor her wishes.
Not once were the difficult visiting conditions of the mother and daughter mentionned. Because of this report, Pascale's request has been rejected.
For months, she has also been asking to see her daughter for a weekend a month, whithout interruption and freely. This request is also regularly rejected. She also asks from the Turkish law that the psychologist who has been following Beryl for a year and whom Pascale regularly meets, determines whether or not her daughter has suffered ill-treatment and sexual ill-treatment. To this day, the psychologist has received no request to that effect, despite of the importance of this matter.
At each hearing, despiate the outrageous image which is given of her by the opposing party, Pascale is present although she doesn't have to. She could be represented by her lawyer. The father has never attened a single hearing, whereas he lives fifty metres from the Court. A chaque audience, en dépit de l'image monstrueuse qui est donnée d'elle par la partie adverse, Pascale est présente bien qu'elle n'y soit pas obligée. Elle pourrait se faire représenter par son avocate. Le père, lui, n'a jamais assisté à une seule audience alors qu'il habite à 50 mètres du tribunal.