The case centers on AH, the young son of Mustafa Hundur and Hazal Barut Hundur, both Turkish nationals. Barut flew with AH from Istanbul to Atlanta on September 1, 2024, on tourist visas, having told Hundur the trip was a temporary family visit — a holiday of about fifteen days to see her mother and family, after which she would return. When Hundur — then recovering from a brain aneurysm that hospitalized him for twenty-five days — asked in October 2024 when they were returning, Barut told him she was setting up her life in the United States and wanted a divorce. Hundur filed a Hague Convention application through the Turkish Ministry of Justice on November 4, 2024, and eventually brought a federal petition that was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia after Barut and AH relocated there.
Barut conceded at the evidentiary hearing that she had wrongfully removed AH from Turkey, and the court agreed, finding no dispute that AH's habitual residence was Turkey, that Hundur held joint custody, and that he was exercising his custodial rights. The litigation turned entirely on her two affirmative defenses: grave risk of harm under Article 13(b), and consent or acquiescence under Article 13(a).
On the grave-risk defense, Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff held that Barut had not met the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. The court credited evidence that Hundur had pushed Barut, grabbed her wrists, and threw glass objects — and declined to fully credit her more serious allegations of repeated choking and sexual assault for lack of corroboration — but concluded the proven incidents were more analogous to the isolated conduct courts found insufficient in Whallon v. Lynn and Belay v. Getachew than to the sustained abuse that supported findings of grave risk in Ermini v. Vittori, Baran v. Beaty, and Luis Ischiu v. Gomez Garcia. The court also discounted the report of licensed social worker Pamela Krasner, whose opinion that AH faced grave risk rested in part on findings — including alleged mental health issues and drug use by Hundur — that were not supported by the evidentiary record. Critically, the court noted that Hundur had spent extended time alone with AH during multiple visits to Georgia in early 2025 with no reported problems, and that the parties were divorcing, reducing the risk of future conflict.
On consent, the court held that Hundur's agreement to the trip did not extend to permanent relocation. Barut had framed the travel as a short holiday visit to her mother; Hundur purchased one-way tickets but both Barut and AH traveled on tourist visas, Barut did not rent an apartment or pack up the Istanbul home, and text messages Hundur sent a friend just before departure described the trip as lasting at least a month, perhaps three months or so. The court distinguished the case from Delgado v. Osuna and Pflucker v. Warms, where both parents traveled together with important documents and took concrete steps toward permanent resettlement.
The acquiescence defense fared no better. Barut argued that Hundur's repeated visits to Georgia, financial support, enrollment of AH in daycare and swim school, formation of a Georgia LLC, and inquiries into permanent residency collectively showed a consistent attitude of acceptance. The court disagreed, reading those actions as an attempt to remain in AH's life and explore whether Hundur himself could relocate — not an unequivocal surrender of his right to have AH in Turkey. The court analogized the situation to Baxter v. Baxter and Moura v. Cunha, where conditional willingness to allow a child to remain abroad only if the petitioner could join them did not constitute acquiescence to permanent removal without him.
The sequence of events leading to the federal petition is significant. After Hundur's May 2025 visit — during which he and Barut discussed the possibility of him moving to the United States in January 2026 — those plans fell through, due in part to shifting economic conditions and increased tariffs that severely harmed his business. In June 2025, AH became ill and required an emergency room visit, after which the parties' relationship deteriorated. Hundur filed for divorce in Turkey, and Barut sought and received a protective order against him. Hundur then filed his federal Hague petition in the Northern District of Georgia in July 2025, which was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia in September 2025 after Barut and AH had relocated there.
Judge Nachmanoff granted the petition and ordered AH's prompt return to Turkey, emphasizing that the ruling resolves only the forum question and leaves all custody determinations to Turkish courts.