Hayvan Hakları Bakışıyla Boşanma: Yeni Bir Çözüm Yolu Olarak Hayvan Velayeti

Öz

Hayvanların insan hayatında varoluşları eski bir olgudur. Ancak, zaman içerisinde insan hayatının özel ve genel anlamda değişimiyle beraber, hayvanların insan hayatındaki statüsü ve buna bağlı olarak hukuk içindeki konumları ve hukuki olgu veya olaylar sonucundaki etkilenme düzeyleri de değişmiştir. Bu noktada, özellikle hayvanların hak sahibi özneler olarak kabulünün temelindeki doktrinsel görüşler önemlidir. Hayvanların hak sahibi özneler olarak kabul edilmesi ve insanlarla bağlarının derinleşmesiyle beraber, boşanma davalarındaki durumları da hak çerçevesinde hukuki, değerlendirmeye muhtaç bir konu haline gelmiştir. Hayvanların, boşanma davalarındaki süreç ve sonuçtan nasıl etkileneceği ile ilgili temelde üç görüş bulunur. İlki, geleneksel görüş de denebilecek hayvanların eşya olarak kabul edilmesi ve eşya paylaşımı rejimine tabi tutulmasıdır. İkinci görüş, hayvan refahı bakış açısının boşanmalara yansımış hali olan ve bu sebeple antroposantrik özellik gösteren ailenin üstün menfaati görüşüdür. Nihayetinde, hayvanların haklarını gerçek anlamda koruyabilecek kuram ise, hayvanın üstün menfaati temelindeki hayvan velayeti düzenlemeleridir. Nitekim, gereken yeni çözüm yolunun hayvan velayeti temelinde olması gerektiğinin pratik kanıtlarını, bazı ülkelerde doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak verilmiş mahkeme kararlarından ve bu yönde gelişen hukuki düzenlemelerden de anlamaktayız. Bu çalışmada, hayvan velayeti temelinde yapılacak düzenlemelerin hayvan hakları kavramının gelişiminde ve toplumsal ihtiyaçlara cevap verme noktasında yasal çerçevede en uygun çözümü temsil edeceği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hayvan hakları
• hayvan velayeti
• hayvanın üstün menfaati
• boşanma
• velayet düzenlemeleri.

Divorce From Animal Rights Perspective: Pet Custody As A New Solution

Öz

The existence of animals in human life is an old phenomenon. However, as human life has evolved over time, both personally and generally, so has the status of animals in human life. As a result, their place in the legal system and the degree to which legal facts or events affect them have also changed. At this point, the doctrinal views underlying the acceptance of animals as rights-bearing subjects are particularly important. As animals are accepted as subjects with rights and their ties with humans have deepened, their situation in divorce cases has become a subject that needs legal evaluation within the framework of rights. There are basically three views on how animals will be affected by the process and outcome of divorce cases. The first or the traditional view is that animals are considered as property and are subject to a marital property regime. The second view is the view of the best interest of the family, which is the reflection of the animal welfare perspective on divorces and therefore has anthropocentric characteristics. Finally, the theory that can truly protect the rights of animals is pet custody rules based on the best interest of the animal. Moreover, we understand the practical evidence that the new solution required should be based on pet custody from the court decisions given explicit or implicit in some countries and the developing legal regulations in this direction. This study concludes that regulations to be made on the basis of pet custody represent the most suitable solution within the legal framework of the development animal rights concept and in addressing societal demands.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• animal rights
• pet custody
• best interest of the animal
• divorce
• custody rules.

Kaynakça

1. Akıntürk, Turgut ve Derya Ateş. Türk Medeni Hukuku Aile Hukuku İkinci Cilt, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2023.
2. Algan, Müberra. Anayasa Hukukunda Çocuk Hakları, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2021.
3. Alkan, Fatih. Çocukla Kişisel İlişki Kurma Hakkı Bağlamında Devletin Pozitif Yükümlülükleri, Legal Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2019.
4. Anderson, David J. ve Ralph Adolphs. “A Framework for Studying Emotions across Species”, Cell, S. 127, 2014, 187-200.
5. Antalya, Osman Gökhan. Eşya Hukuku Cilt I, Legal Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2017, s. 24.Eşya Hukuku Cilt I, Legal Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2017.
6. Bekoff, Marc. Hayvanların Duygusal Dünyası, çev. Asude Taçyıldız İpekçioğlu, Destek Yayınları, İstanbul, 2020.
7. Boissy, Alain, Gerhard Manteuffel, Margit Bak Jensen vd., “Assessment of Positive Emotions in Animals to Improve Their Welfare”, Physiology&Behavior, S. 92, 2007, 375-397.
8. Britton, Ann Hartwell. “Bones of Contention: Custody of Family Pets”, Journal of the Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, C. 20, S. 1, 2006, 1-38.

9. Cantarella, Eva. “Aile ve Patria Potestas”, içinde: Antik Roma, Edt. Umberto Eco, Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım, İstanbul, 2018, 344-349.
10. Carter, C. S.. “Neuroendocrine Perspectives on Social Attachment and Love”, Psychoneuroendocrinology, C. 23, S. 8, 1998, 779-818.
11. Barış, Demirsatan, “Boşanmada Ev Hayvanlarının Hukuki Durumu”, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, c.24, s.3, 2020, 137-161.
12. Dural, Mustafa ve Tufan Öğüz ve M. Alper Gümüş, Türk Özel Hukuku Cilt III, Aile Hukuku, Filiz Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2024.
13. Duru, Buse. Hayvan Hakları Teorisi ve Pozitif Hukuk İncelemesi, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2023.
14. Eason, L. Morgan. “A Bone to Pick: Applying a Best Interest of the Family Standard in Pet Custody Disputes”, South Dakota Law Review, C. 62, S. 1, 2017, 1-34.
15. Francione Gary L. ve Robert Garner. The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation, Columbia University Press, New York, 2010.
16. Franklin, Emily. “How to Give the Dog a Home: Using Mediation to Solve Companion Animal Custody Disputes”, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, C. 12, 2012, 351-372.
17. Fraser, David. “Animal Welfare”, İçinde Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, Edt. Marc Bekoff, Greenwood Press, Westport, 1998, 56-57.
18. Gentry, Dianna. “Including Companion Animals in Protective Orders: Curtailing the Reach of Domestic Violence”, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, C. 13, S. 97, 2001, s. 97-116.
19. Gregory, John DeWitt. “Pet Custody: Distorting Language and The Law”, Family Law Quarterly, C. 44, S. 1, 2010, 35-64.
20. Hallam, Paula. “Dogs and Divorce: Chattels or Children? -Or Somewhere In-Between?”, Southern Cross University Law Review, C. 17, 2014, 97-113.
21. Hatemi, Hüseyin ve Burcu Kalkan Oğuztürk. Aile Hukuku, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2013.
22. Horvath, Kristy ve Margaret Ryznar. “Protecting the Parent-Child Relationship”, George Washington International Law Review, C. 47, 2015, 303-326.
23. Humphries, Jane. Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
24. Jardine, Adam, Marilyn Bromberg ve Nicholas Cardaci. “No More Fighting Like Cats and Dogs: It’s Time for a New Pet Custody Model in Australia”, Canberra Law Review, C. 19, S.1, 2022, 86-109.
25. Jena, Nibedita Priyadarshini. “Animal Welfare and Animal Rights: an Examination of Some Ethical Problems”, Journal of Academic Ethics. S. 15, 2017, 377-395.
26. Karaman, Ebru. Velayet Hakkı Bağlamında Çocuğun Üstün Yararı İlkesinin Anayasal Değerlendirilmesi, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2023.
27. Kılıçoğlu, Ahmet Mithat. Aile Hukuku, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, 2019.
28. Koçhisarlıoğlu, Cingiz ve Özlem Söğütlü Erişgin. “Hayvanın Hukuki Durumu”, Yaşar Üniversitesi Elektronik Dergisi: Prof. Dr. Aydın Zevkliler’e Armağan, 8/Özel Sayı, 2013, 1691-1724.
29. Koçoğlu, Safa. Boşanmanın Çocuk Açısından Sonuçları, Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım, İstanbul, 2018.
30. Kudasik-Gil, Emilia. “Spanish Animal Protection Law – an Overview of Civil, Criminal and Administrative Provisions Concerning Animal Welfare”, içinde: Legal Protection of Animals, Edt. Emil Kruk, Grzegorz Lubenczuk, Hanna Spasowska-Czarny, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Press, Lublin, 2020, 343-358.
31. Lenguaer, Erwin. “Tom Regan’s Philosophy of Animal Rights: Subjects-of-a-Life in the Context of Discussion of Instrinsic and Inherent Value”, Problemos. S. 97, 2020, 87-98.
32. Lerner, Pablo. “With Whom will The Dog Remain? On the Meaning of the ‘Good of the Animal’ in Israeli Family Custodial Disputes”, Journal of Animal Law, C. 6, 2010, 105-130.
33. Lund Vonne vd. “Animal Welfare Science—Working at the Interface Between the Natural and Social Sciences”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, S. 97, 2006, 37-49.
34. McLain, Tabby. “Adapting The Child’s Best Interest Model to Custody Determination of Companion Animals”, Journal of Animal Law, C. 6, 2010, 151-168.
35. Mićković, Sara. “Fur-Ever Homes After Divorce: The Future of Pet Custody”, Animal Law Review, C. 28, S. 1, 2022, 47-62.
36. Newberry, Michelle. “Associations Between Different Motivations for Animal Cruelty, Methods of Animal Cruelty and Facets of Impulsivity”, Psychology, Crime and Law, C. 24, S. 5, 500-526.
37. Odendaal, J. S. J. ve R. A. Meintjes. “Neurophysiological Correlates of Affiliative Behavious Between Humans and Dogs”, The Veterinary Journal, C. 165, S. 3, 2003, 296-299.
38. Oktay Özdemir, Saibe. “Boşanma Davalarında Çocuklara İlişkin Kararlar Bakımından Çocuğun Dinlenme Hakkı”, Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Hatemi’ye Armağan, II. Cilt, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2009, 1219-1242.
39. Öztan, Bilge. Aile Hukuku, Turhan Yayınevi, Ankara, 2004.
40. Paul, Elizabeth S. ve Michael T. Mendl. “Animal Emotion: Descriptive and Prescriptive Definitions and Their Implications for a Comparative Perspective”, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, S.205, 2018, 202-209.
41. Regan, Tom. The Case For Animal Rights, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1983.
42. Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights”, İçinde Advences in Animal Welfare Science 1986/87, Edt. M.W. Fox, L. D. Mickley,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Washington, 1986, 179-189.
43. Rook, Deborah. “Who Gets Charlie? The Emergence of Pet Custody Disputes in Family Law Adapting Theoretical Tools from Child Law”, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, S. 28, 2014, 177-193.
44. Seps, Christopher D.. “Animal Law Evolution: Treating Pets as Persons in Tort and Custody Disputes”, University of Illinois Law Review, S. 4, 2010, 1339-1374.
45. Serozan, Rona. Çocuk Hukuku, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2005.
46. Simmons, Schyler P..“What is the Next Step for Companion Pets in The Legal System? The Answer May Lie with The Historical Development of The Legal Rights for Minors”, Texas A&M Law Review, S. 253, 2003, 253-285.
47. Tavşancıl Kalafatoğlu, Deniz. “Türkiye’de Hayvan Hakları”, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, C. 96, S. 6, 2019, 73-104.
48. Tokuş, Aylin. Evlilik Birliğinin Boşanma ile Sona Ermesi Durumunda Birlikte Velayet, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2021.
49. Trollinger, Melissa. “The Link Among Animal Abuse, Child Abuse and Domestic Violence”, Colorado Lawyer, C. 30, S. 9, 2001, s. 29-32.
50. Walsh, Froma. “Human-Animal Bonds I: The Relational Significance of Companion Animals”, Fam Process, C. 48, S. 4, 2009, 462-480.
51. Yılmaz, Süleyman ve Abdulkerim Yıldırım. Medeni Hukuk-I: Başlangıç Hükümleri-Kişiler Hukuku-Aile Hukuku, Seçkin Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2023.
52. Zentall, Thomas R..“Animal Intelligence”, İçinde The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence Edt. Robert J. Sternberg, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020, 397-427.
53. Hukuki Düzenlemeler ve Mahkeme Kararları:
54. 5199 Sayılı Hayvanları Koruma Kanunu, RG 26.06.2004, Sayı: 25509. AİHM Elsholz-Almanya Kararı, B.N. 25735/94, 13.07.2000, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22fulltext%22:[%22elsholz%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58763%22]} (E.T. 08.06.2024).
55. AİHM, Hokkanen-Finlandiya Kararı, B.N. 19823/92, 23.09.1994, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22fulltext%22:[%22hokkanen%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57911%22]} (E.T. 08.06.2024).
56. Akers v. Sellers, Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc, 54 N.E.2d 779 (Ind.App.1944), https://www.animallaw.info/case/akers-v-sellers (E.T. 09.06.2024).
57. Alaska Status § 25.24.160 (a)(5), https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ak-divorce-§-2524160-judgment (E.T. 10.06.2024). Arrington v. Arrington, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981), https://www.animallaw.info/case/arrington-v-arrington (E.T. 05.06.2024).
58. Assal v. Barwick, Maryland Circuit Court, No. 164421 (Md. Cir. Ct. Dec 3, 1999), https://www.animallaw.info/pleading/assal-v-barwick-kidwell (E.T. 09.06.2024).
59. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Ek 7 Nolu Protokol, https://insanhaklarimerkezi.bilgi.edu.tr/media/uploads/2016/08/26/AIHS_7.protokol.pdf (E.T. 10.06.2024).
60. Bennett v. Bennett, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, 655 So.2d 109 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.,1995), https://www.animallaw.info/case/bennett-v-bennett (E.T. 07.06.2024). Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Hakları Bildirgesi, https://kdkcocuk.gov.tr/anasayfa/contents/files/YasalDuzenlemeler/BM_cocuk_Haklari_Bildirisi.pdf (E.T. 08.06.2024).
61. Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Haklarına Dair Sözleşme, https://www.unicef.org/turkiye/çocuk-haklarına-dair-sözleşme (E. T. 08.06.2024). Bueckner v. Hamel, Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston [1st Dist.], 886 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. App. 1994), https://www.animallaw.info/case/bueckner-v-hamel (E. T. 09.06.2024).
62. California Family Code, § 2605(b), https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ca-divorce-§-2605-care-and-ownership-pet-animal (E.T. 10.06.2024).
63. Ev Hayvanlarının Korunmasına Dair Avrupa Sözleşmesi, https://inhak.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/Dokuman/2712020151658125_tur.pdf (E.T. 10.06.2024).
64. Dickson v. Dickson, Ark. Garland County Ch. Ct., No. 94-1072. (Aktaran: Huss, “Seperation, Custody and Estate”, s. 223.).
65. Hament v. Baker, Supreme Court of Vermont, 2014 VT 39, 97 A.3d 461 (Vt. 2014), https://www.animallaw.info/case/hament-v-baker (E.T. 07.06.2024).
66. Houseman v. Dare, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, 966 A.2d 24 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009), https://www.animallaw.info/case/houseman-v-dare (E.T. 05.06.2024).
67. Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriages Act, § 501/5, https://www.animallaw.info/statute/il-divorce-act-5-illinois-marriage-and-dissolution-marriage-act (E.T. 10.06.2024).
68. İzmir 16. Aile Mahkemesi, E. 2018/592, K. 2018/597, (Aktaran: Deniz Tavşancıl Kalafatoğlu, “Türkiye’de Hayvan Hakları”, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, C. 96, S. 6, 2019, s. 102.)
69. Juelfs v. Gough, Supreme Court of Alaska, 41 P.3d 593 (Alaska 2002), https://www.animallaw.info/case/juelfs-v-gough (E.T. 09.06.2024).
70. Pedroni v. Capello, Court of Juzgado Civil 7, Poder Judicial de la Nación, Juzgado Civil 7, Fallo 23536/2021, https://www.animallaw.info/case/pedroni-matías-andrés-c-capello-marina-alejandra-s-medidas-precautorias-–-familia (E.T. 09.06.2024). Placey v. Placey, Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 51 So.3d 374 (Ala. Civ. App., 2010), https://www.animallaw.info/case/placey-v-placey (E. T. 09.06.2024).
71. Ploni v. Plonit, Ramat Gan Family Court, FC 32405/01, 2004, (Aktaran: Hallam, Paula. “Dogs and Divorce: Chattels or Children? -Or Somewhere In-Between?”, Southern Cross University Law Review, C. 17, 2014, s. 104.)
72. Prim v. Fisher, No. S1464-09 CnC (Toor, J., Dec. 22, 2009), https://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/superior-court/2009/2010-2-25-5.html (E.T. 07.06.2024). Raymond v. Lachmann, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York, 695 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999), https://www.animallaw.info/case/raymond-v-lachmann (E.T. 07.06.2024).
73. Re Marriage of Stewart, Court of Appeals of Iowa, 356 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984), https://www.animallaw.info/case/re-marriage-stewart (E.T. 05.06.2024).
74. Sentencia 10013-103027-2023-00229-00 (0327), Tribunal Superior de Bogota, Tribunal Superior de Bogotá, Sala Mixta, Sentencia del 6 de octubre de 2023, Rad. 10013-103027-2023-00229-00 (0327), https://www.animallaw.info/case/sentencia-10013-103027-2023-00229-00-0327 (E. T. 09.06.2024).
75. Swiss Civil Code, https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/20240101/en/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-cc-24-233_245_233-20240101-en-pdf-a-1.pdf (E.T. 10.06.2024).
76. Travis v. Murray, Supreme Court, New York Country, New York, 977 N.Y.S.2d 621 (Sup. Ct. 2013), https://www.animallaw.info/case/travis-v-murray (E.T. 07.06.2024).
77. Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, 06.03.2013, E. 2012/2-794, K. 2013/310, https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/# (E.T. 10.06.2024).
78. Zovko v. Gregory, No. CH 97-544 (Va. Cir. Ct., Oct. 17, 21997) (Aktaran: Rebecca J. Huss, “Seperation, Custody and Estate Planning Issues Relating to Companon Animals”, University of Colorado Law Review, C. 74, 2003, s. 226.).