Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355

Petitioner Ozaltin sought the return of his two children to Turkey under the Hague Convention and ICARA, and a separate order enforcing his access rights; the SDNY granted the return, ordered access in the US during pendency, and awarded the Father costs; Mother appealed on multiple grounds including the return, access, and costs.
Mother returned the children to Turkey on July 15, 2012 pursuant to the District Court's return order and challenges the ruling on appeal.
Turkish family courts had issued provisional custody and visitation orders in 2011–2012, with the Mother consuming significant time in the US, while the Father contended he retained Turkish custody rights.
The District Court found Father held custody rights under Turkish law and that the Mother's removal interfered with those rights, ordered return and access, and awarded costs; the Second Circuit affirmed the return and access, vacated the cost award, and remanded for recalculation of costs.
The court recognized a federally enforceable right to enforce access rights under ICARA, but vacated the full costs award due to the Mother’s reasonable basis for removal and concerns about forum-shopping; remanded for a discretionary costs determination.
The opinion stresses that it does not adjudicate underlying custody merits and that Turkish courts remain empowered to resolve custody issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the removal of the children wrongful under the Hague Convention?	Father contends Turkish law gave him custody rights and Mother's 2011 removal violated them.	Mother contends Turkish orders authorized or did not place Father’s rights in jeopardy; removal was permissible.	Yes; removal was wrongful and return ordered.
Does ICARA authorize a private federal right to enforce rights of access under the Hague Convention?	Father argues §11603(b) creates a federal right to enforce access rights.	Mother argues no federal right exists to enforce access rights under Article 21.	Yes; federal right of action to enforce access rights exists.
Was the district court proper to award all necessary expenses (costs) to the prevailing petitioner?	Costs should be awarded as allowed by 42 U.S.C. §11607(b)(3).	Award should be limited given circumstances and potential forum-shopping; full costs inappropriate.	No; vacate full costs award and remand for discretionary determination consistent with equitable principles.

Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010) (broad definition of 'rights of custody' under the Hague Convention; joint custody concepts)
Cantor v. Cohen, 442 F.3d 196 (4th Cir. 2006) (debate over whether Article 21 creates a federal right of action for access)
Mota v. Castillo, 692 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2012) (distinguishes substance of custody rights from forum-shopping concerns)
Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003) (Treatise-like guidance on treaty interpretation and international law principles)
Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (principles on applying Hague Convention and ICARA; not binding here but contextual)