THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS as set out by Bruce Rennick Laybourn

1)    Due to an oversight, New Zealand’s membership of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction was not recognised by Turkey in 2007.

2)    Despite this, Turkish authorities willingly opening the case for the retrieval of Dylan and were well down the court process when they were informed of the lack of recognition from Wellington.

3)    The Ministry of Justice’s Central Authority appointed a barrister to work for Dylan’s retrieval but the authority then declared it would advise Turkey of the technicality relating to recognition of New Zealand’s membership of the Hague Convention. This was despite the fact that Turkey had already opened the case.

4)    I travelled to Turkey in July and August, 2007. Here, I enjoyed far greater support and encouragement from officialdom than in New Zealand. I spent an hour at the New Zealand Embassy in Ankara with my Turkish lawyer briefing embassy staff about the case, with my lawyer explaining how the legal system works in Turkey.

5)    The New Zealand Embassy promised they would take up the matter with the new Turkish government – but some months later, nothing had been done.

6)    After leaving Ankara, I drove with my Turkish lawyer to Istanbul for a meeting with the prosecutor handling Dylan’s case. While in his office, the prosecutor explained, while clearly shocked, that he had no option but to close the case for the retrieval of Dylan following Wellington’s advice to Ankara over the technicality relating to recognition of New Zealand joining the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.

7)    I felt utterly abandoned by my own country in my desperate quest to have my son returned to New Zealand. As we left the prosecutor’s office my Turkish lawyer, also devastated, said: “Your own country has stabbed you in the back.”

8)    Worse awaited. When I checked my emails at my hotel there was a note from the New Zealand Central Authority informing me that as the Turks had stopped the case on advice from New Zealand Foreign Affairs, all official support for me was withdrawn. The barrister who had been appointed to handle the case emailed me that he was instructed not to act further on my behalf.

9)    There is huge media interest in this compelling and tragic humanitarian case, especially after footage was filmed of Turkish Secret Police interceding during legal access to Dylan in February, 2008. These same state police were at my hotel when I returned there with Dylan and even tried to burst into my room.

10)     I have resisted approaches from two television documentary programmes in New Zealand and from Turkey’s largest newspaper, foolishly optimistic that New Zealand might find a diplomatic solution.

11)    Despite many well-documented approaches to New Zealand Foreign Affairs and to Winston Peters, prior to his 2008 visit to Turkey, nothing was done to raise the matter with the Turks.

12)    In discussion with many Turks in Turkey over many years I have been amazed at their high regard for New Zealand as a result of the warrior respect of Gallipoli. From the judge to the prosecutor and legal figures I met, all are astounded that the New Zealand government has done nothing to promote the application for the return of Dylan. “Does your country not care for the return of one of its citizens?” was a common query.

13)    New Zealand’s utter lack of action is in huge contrast to the very active participation of other countries in pursuing a just outcome for Hague Convention applications (see notes on US involvement contained in Jeremy D. Morley’s report appended).

14)    On September 8, 2008 I was shocked and devastated to learn from the barrister appointed to handle the case, Alex Ashmore, that New Zealand’s Central Authority has advised him not to act further for the return of Dylan.

The reason given is that the Central Authority have accepted the Turk’s second rejection, without question or request for a review, despite the fact that the custody order used as the reason for denial is not allowed under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction’s Article 18.

As well, the custody order is under appeal and could well be overturned.

Very concerning is the fact that the Central Authority, in its second abandonment of Dylan’s case, has cited erroneous data – namely that I participated in the custody order proceedings in Istanbul on December 28, 2007. I did not participate but later (in February, 2008) got a Turkish Family Court access order for the months of February and August while the custody appeal was awaiting a court fixture.

It should be noted that I had to abandon my trip to Istanbul in August for a much-awaiting reunion with Dylan (I have not seen my son since February) because his mother’s family removed him to an address they refused to divulge to prevent me seeing him – in defiance of the Turkish court order.

My Turkish lawyer, Nedim Yuca, has informed me that despite being cheated of a month with my son, there is no chance to get a replacement month. While Turkish authorities have confirmed the illegal removal of Dylan, there is little that can be done.

I am distressed that it is now 16 months since Dylan was abducted – and no progress has been made!

In recognising the traumatic impact on parents, the Hague Convention sets a desired time for returning a child of 6 weeks!

This endless inaction is utterly in contravention of Hague Convention principles, is uncaring and inhumane.