## Facts

- Ismail Yaman (father) and Linda Yaman (mother) married in Turkey and lived there with their two children for several years.
- After the parents separated, the father began divorce and custody proceedings in a Turkish family court.
- The mother alleged the father sexually abused one child; the Turkish court investigated using court-appointed mental-health professionals and other independent experts.
- After multiple hearings, the Turkish court rejected the abuse claim and awarded the father sole legal custody with visitation to the mother; Turkish appellate courts affirmed, and the order became final.
- Soon after finalization, the mother left Turkey with the children without notifying the father, lived in countries selected in part to avoid return mechanisms, later obtained U.S. passports, and moved with the children to New Hampshire.
- The father pursued return of the children under the Hague Convention and ICARA in federal court; return was denied on discretionary grounds after findings that the mother did not prove a “grave risk” of harm and the children were settled in New Hampshire.
- The father then sought registration and enforcement of the Turkish custody order in New Hampshire under the UCCJEA.
- The mother opposed enforcement, arguing the Turkish proceedings denied her an adequate opportunity to be heard because of language and translation limits and procedural constraints (including limits on discovery, challenging experts, and cross-examination).
- The New Hampshire circuit court registered and enforced the Turkish order and directed return of the children to the father’s custody in Turkey; the mother appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Turkish custody proceedings denied the mother an “opportunity to be heard” such that New Hampshire could not register and enforce the foreign custody determination under the UCCJEA.
2. Whether enforcement was barred because Turkish law or its application in this case violated “fundamental principles of human rights” under the UCCJEA’s foreign-country provision.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s registration and enforcement of the Turkish custody order.
- The court held the mother had an adequate opportunity to be heard in the Turkish proceedings for UCCJEA purposes.
- The court held the human-rights exception did not apply because the Turkish proceedings were not an egregious violation of fundamental human rights.
- The court concluded New Hampshire was required to recognize and enforce the Turkish custody determination and could not relitigate custody merits.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJEA, a qualifying foreign country custody determination is treated like an out-of-state custody determination and must be recognized and enforced when entered in substantial conformity with UCCJEA standards.
- The UCCJEA’s “opportunity to be heard” requirement does not require foreign procedures to mirror U.S. civil procedure; procedural differences do not defeat enforcement absent a basic denial of due process.
- The UCCJEA’s fundamental human-rights exception is narrow; it applies only to egregious violations of fundamental human rights, not merely procedures that differ from U.S. practice or contested outcomes.
- In registration/enforcement proceedings, the enforcing court’s role is limited to jurisdictional and procedural fairness questions; it may not retry the underlying custody dispute.

## Conclusion

New Hampshire enforced the Turkish custody decree under the UCCJEA because the mother was afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the Turkish proceedings and the record did not show an egregious violation of fundamental human rights, making relitigation of custody merits improper.


In re Yaman, 167 N.H. 82, 105 A.3d 600 (N.H. 2014)