In short
An international child-return application is the request of the parent who was left behind for a return to the habitual residence. This text does not write removing the child from a place, concealing the child, or hiding an address. There is no country list. Return is not a judgment of to whom custody will be given. A number of days is not frozen. If there is no return day written in the file, it is not carried here either. The owner of the application is not the person keeping the child, but the parent who was left behind.
The application belongs to the parent left behind
The application that is read is the file of the parent who was left behind. The text carries the child's identity, with whom the child is, and with which events the habitual residence is described. Going to the central authority, or to the competent court, is read from the record in that file. The application form, the identity document, and the decision about the place where the child is stand together. The three are not treated as one paper. Whom service was issued to is compared separately with the name in the petition. The address line is not a description of a place to be hidden. The other party's defence is not written by being crushed into the application.
Habitual residence does not end with a single stamp sentence in the passport. Where the child lived, with whom the care remained, and the sequence of events the parents described are read together. A number of days is not invented for a time limit. Which event was written in which order in the record is taken as the basis. A missing date is left as missing. A guess does not take the place of the document. What the parent left behind described, and what the person with whom the child is described, are kept separate. Which of them rests on a document is marked separately.
Return is not a custody judgment
Return is the question whether the child will go back to the habitual residence. With which parent custody will remain is not the answer to that question by itself. Custody proceedings are a separate file. A return decision is not read as a custody judgment. Recognition of a foreign custody judgment is not treated as the result of this application either. Recognition asks whether the judgment will produce effect. Return is a request to go back. The two questions are not merged in the same sentence. A maintenance judgment is not an annex to the return application either.
The exceptions in the convention are read in the file before the court. This text does not line those exceptions up as a way of keeping the child, and it does not open their content. The list of states parties is not written. Whether a state is a party comes from the particular record. The reasoning of the decision is not put in place of the operative part. Even if the reasoning is long, the judgment is read from the concluding sentence. If there is no concluding sentence, a result is not invented.
What is looked for in the application is how the claim that the child left the habitual residence is built in the document. With which event the departure is described, with whom the child remained, and what the parent left behind asked for stand in the same file. These three are not a plan for taking the child from one place to another. A plan, an address, and a way of hiding are not written. If the name of the central authority appears in the file, that name is read. If it does not appear, a list of authorities is not lined up. The name of the court also comes from the record in the file. If there is no record, a court is not invented. If the operative part of the decision does not speak of return, a custody sentence is not read as return. If the two judgments are in the same clause, the clause is separated, and each is read from its own sentence.
How the application is separated
The identity document, the application, and any earlier decision stand side by side in the same file. The three are not copies of one another. Counsel in Ankara does not write the address of the Çankaya office in place of the return court. The competent authority is read from the application's own record. A day is not added so that a time limit will pass by itself. If a return day is not written in the file, it is not written here either. If service is missing, that gap is stated separately, and it is not put in place of the return result. Which authority is competent comes from the record in the application document.
Neighbouring routes are not the same request
Custody, a foreign judgment, and a foreign custody decision are not a copy of this application. Only the three questions that get mixed up stand under separate headings. How custody is established is under custody, exequatur of a foreign judgment is under exequatur, and recognition of a foreign custody decision is under recognition. These three doors do not repeat the sentence of the return petition. Concealing the child's whereabouts is not a step of any of them.
Conclusion
The question of how an international child-return application is read is read from the application document of the parent who was left behind. Removing the child, concealing the child, or hiding an address is not in this text. Return is not a custody judgment. A country list is not written. The frame is on the international law page, and the basis is the name of Law No. 5718 and of the Hague child-return convention. A separate internet address is not invented for the convention. A result is not built before the particular identity document and the decision are seen.