Appeal Against a Custody Decision: Routes, Time Limits, Finality and Enforcement

First determine the type of decision and the aim of the application

That a file says "custody" does not mean that all decisions undergo the same review. The first question is which part of the ruling is sought to be changed: with whom the child will stay, the contact arrangement, maintenance or an interim order? The second question is within which proceedings the decision was given. The custody part of a divorce judgment and a stand-alone custody change matter brought after the divorce must be distinguished in particular.[1][2][3]

This distinction is especially important when custody, personal contact and maintenance are in the same decision. That a remedy is open as to one part does not by itself open the others. Writing separately in the appeal petition the paragraphs of the ruling that are challenged and the result sought for each makes the limit of the review visible.[1][3]

On what date does the time limit for appeal begin?

The notification rule and the knowledge rule

Under HMK Art. 345, the general time limit for appeal is two weeks from the proper notification of the decision. For BAM decisions open to appeal on points of law, HMK Art. 361 likewise provides two weeks from notification. In this regime, the date of the decision at the hearing, the date the reasoned decision was written and the date of notification are not the same thing. Each party's period is calculated according to its own valid notification.[1]

However, HMK Art. 387 provides, in non-contentious jurisdiction matters, for persons with a legal interest a special appeal period of two weeks from learning of the decision. In a matter within Art. 382, such as a stand-alone custody change, it is not safe to say, without any assessment, that "the period does not start until a notification arrives." In what scope and when the decision was learned, and how this is documented in the file, must be examined. The date on which the result was merely announced at the hearing should also not be automatically equated with learning the reasoned decision.[1]

In a matter pursued with a lawyer, notification is as a rule made to the lawyer. If notification has been made to more than one attorney, the first valid notification matters. The day the client saw the document and the date of the attorney's notification must therefore be checked separately.[4]

Transitional provisions for older decisions

Today's periods cannot be applied as they are to all decisions from years ago. HMK provisional Art. 3 preserves files that remain under the old appeal-on-points-of-law regime. The amendment by Law No. 7035 concerning the two-week appeal-on-points-of-law period in HMK Art. 361 applies to decisions given on or after 5 August 2017. In addition, in the periods changed by Law No. 7499 there is a distinction by decision date of 1 June 2024; for example, the period for challenging the rejection of an appeal petition in HMK Art. 346 falls within this. It cannot be said that the general appeal period was raised to two weeks for the first time in 2024.[1][6]

How are the fifth day and the two weeks calculated for a UETS notification?

Under Art. 7/a of the Notification Law No. 7201, an electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the day on which it reached the addressee's electronic address (Electronic Notification Address System, UETS). Opening the message early does not bring this statutory date forward in a calculation of periods based on general notification. An SMS or e-mail alert is likewise not the notification itself; the UETS evidence record is the basis.[4][5]

The following hypothetical example is for the custody part of a divorce judgment subject to the notification-based general appeal rule of HMK Art. 345; it should not be applied directly to the knowledge debate within Art. 387:

The fifth day falling on a Sunday does not move the notification date to Monday. The extended date is, in the example, the end of the two-week application period. Merging these two stages leads to a wrong last-day calculation. For a physical filing, working hours, and for an electronic transaction, HMK Art. 445 and the completed submission record must be taken into account separately.[1][4]

Do the judicial recess and weekends stop the application period?

Under HMK Arts. 92–93, holidays within the period are counted; if the last day falls on an official holiday, the end moves to the first working day. In calculating "two weeks," it is wrong to subtract every weekend or to count only working days.[1]

Actions and matters concerning custody are heard during the judicial recess under HMK Art. 103(1)(b). Non-contentious jurisdiction matters also fall within the exception. The one-week extension in HMK Art. 104 therefore cannot be added to the application period in a custody matter merely because it falls in the summer period. The exception is taken into account also for review by the BAM and the Court of Cassation.[1]

In a decision where divorce, maintenance and custody claims are in the same file, the nature of the action and of the part of the ruling must be examined separately. Instead of establishing a single judicial recess rule for all family court files, it must be determined which period runs for which part. In practice, the most cautious course is to complete preparation against the early date calculated without relying on an assumption of extension.

How are the appeal petition and document file prepared?

Tie the grounds to the concrete effect on the child

Under HMK Art. 342, the court, date and number of the decision, notification information, grounds of the application and the result sought must be shown. Instead of the statement "the decision is unjust," it must be explained which finding contradicts which document. For example, if no investigation has been made into the care arrangement, the missing school, health and daily care data must be stated; if an objection is made to the social investigation report, the problem between the observation in the report and its conclusion must be made concrete.[1]

The recommended order of writing is: part of the ruling → error → evidence in the file → effect on the child → decision requested. Why the child's views were not taken, whether the expert assessment is up to date, sibling relationships and the practicability of personal contact may be addressed depending on the features of the file. These headings are not by themselves grounds for quashing; how the deficiency affects reaching the right result must be shown.

Document list before the application

1. The whole of the reasoned decision, and in particular the operative paragraphs.
2. The notification receipt or UETS evidence record; in non-contentious jurisdiction, the records showing learning of the decision.
3. Hearing minutes, interim custody and personal contact interim decisions.
4. Social investigation reports, objections to the reports and the dates they were submitted.
5. Lawfully obtained school, health and care documents in the file that are relevant.
6. Records showing in which petition evidence that was requested earlier but not collected was notified.
7. A note explaining why a newly submitted document could not be submitted earlier or how it affects the child's current interests.
8. Power of attorney, fee and expense documents and the completed application receipt.

The petition may be submitted to the court that gave the decision or to another court for forwarding. Under HMK Art. 343, the receipt must be kept. The one-week final period given on proper notice under Art. 344 for deficiencies in fees and expenses differs from the general two-week appeal period. Failure to complete within the period may result in the application being deemed not made. If there is difficulty in paying, the conditions for legal aid and the necessary documents should be assessed without delay.[1]

What does the regional court of appeal examine, and can new evidence be submitted?

The appeal review is not a stage that looks only at the form of the decision. The BAM examines both procedure and merits; depending on the conditions, it may dismiss the application on the merits, set aside the judgment and give a new decision, or in certain cases under HMK Art. 353 remit the file. Not every deficiency automatically means a retrial in the first-instance court.[1]

HMK Art. 355 limits the review to the grounds of appeal; violations of public policy are considered of the court's own motion. The duty to investigate matters concerning the child's interests in custody is important in this respect. But a public-policy ground does not create a right to apply without a time limit or to file a petition without grounds. The concrete errors at hand must still be clearly shown.[1][9]

HMK Art. 357 imposes a limitation on claims, defences and new evidence not raised in the first instance. Matters to be considered of the court's own motion, evidence properly submitted but not examined, and evidence that could not be submitted because of force majeure are assessed separately. If information that arose later about the child's current safety or living conditions is being submitted, the date of the event, its source and why it matters must be explained.[1]

In its decision of 17 January 2019, E.2017/2066, K.2019/15, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) accepted that a current assessment is required in respect of a child who has reached the maturity to express his or her views in the course of the proceedings. This decision shows that the child's situation may change during the proceedings; it does not mean that all new allegations will be accepted without examination.[9]

Which custody decisions can be appealed on points of law?

An important limitation in a stand-alone custody change

HMK Art. 362(1)(ç) closes appeal on points of law against decisions given by the BAM in non-contentious jurisdiction matters. HMK Art. 382(2)(b)(13) lists removal of custody, taking it from one spouse and giving it to the other, and restoring custody that has been removed. It is therefore wrong to assume that Court of Cassation review will necessarily follow a BAM decision in a stand-alone custody change file. The parties' sharp disagreement does not by itself change the classification of non-contentious jurisdiction made by the statute.[1][3]

The decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) of 23 October 2025, E.2025/7089, K.2025/9181, makes this distinction concrete. In a file containing claims for a change of custody, abolition of maintenance and regulation of personal contact, the father's appeal on points of law against the rejection of his request for a change of custody was rejected because of the finality bar. By contrast, the mother's appeal on points of law concerning the duration of personal contact, the overnight arrangement and the attorney's fee was examined; the BAM decision was upheld in that respect.[3]

The decision does not support the conclusion that "no ruling in a custody file can be appealed on points of law." Its real importance is that different rulings in the same file are separated in terms of the remedy. That an appeal on points of law is available about personal contact does not open the custody change part to appeal on points of law either.[3]

If appeal on points of law is open, the aim of the petition

For the custody arrangement within a divorce judgment and in other cases open to appeal on points of law, the type of BAM decision and the exceptions in HMK Art. 362 are checked separately. The appeal petition must contain the elements of HMK Art. 364 and show which rule of law the BAM's reasoning applied wrongly. HMK Art. 365 regulates the courts to which the application may be submitted, and Art. 366 the application in appeal on points of law of certain rules on appeal (istinaf).[1]

The Court of Cassation's legal review is not a rehearing of the file with all its facts without limit. For maintenance or compensation in the same file, the monetary conditions for appeal on points of law are examined separately; HMK Art. 362(3), added in 2026, must also be taken into account in this assessment. This financial provision does not remove the bar on appeal on points of law against non-contentious custody change decisions.[1]

What route is followed for an interim custody decision?

TMK Art. 169 gives the judge the duty of taking the interim measures necessary for the care and protection of the child while a divorce or separation action is pending. This decision is different from the final custody ruling to be given at the end of the case. If the interim arrangement is not suitable, a reasoned request may be made to the court that gave the decision for it to be changed or reassessed.[2]

In this request, it should be shown which assumption of the earlier decision has changed or which important information was not assessed. The child's school routine actually being disrupted, a concrete safety risk, a fundamental change in care conditions or the impracticability of the contact arrangement are meaningful only when a connection with documents and events is established. If there is urgent risk, rather than waiting only for the remedy file to conclude, a suitable protective arrangement should be requested from the existing court.[2]

The full set of remedy rules of HMK Arts. 389–394 cannot be applied to interim custody under TMK Art. 169 merely because the word "injunction" (tedbir) appears in its name. Çağrı's 2026 study reports the approach of review together with the principal judgment and the limitation on independent appeal on points of law against these measures. The basic approach for a TMK Art. 169 measure is to request a change from the same court and to raise the objection of unlawfulness in the remedy open against the final judgment. That direct independent appeal (istinaf) is possible cannot be inferred merely from the word "injunction."[1][2][7]

If what is involved is genuinely an interim injunction established under HMK Art. 389, the special regime in Arts. 341 and 394 applies: rejection, acceptance in the presence of the other side, and the decision given on an objection to an order made in absence are distinguished from one another. Consequently, the same "one-week objection" or "two-week direct appeal" explanation cannot be given for every interim custody decision. The legal basis of the request, the content of the interim decision and the relevant remedy provision must be read together.[1]

How are finality, enforcement and a complaint about child handover distinguished?

HMK Arts. 350(2) and 367(2) provide that decisions concerning family law cannot be carried out until they become final. Relying only on the general rule that "an appeal does not automatically stop enforcement" for the final custody ruling is therefore incomplete. In the examination of finality, whether a remedy is open, the valid notifications, the scope of the applications and the relevant part of the ruling are checked.[1]

Interim custody and interim personal contact arrangements exist to provide protection while the proceedings continue. While awaiting finality of the final ruling, the implementation of the existing interim decision and, if necessary, its change must be assessed separately. As regards maintenance as well, interim maintenance and payment items tied to the final ruling must not be confused.[1][2]

If a complaint is made about an act of the directorate in the enforcement of a decision on child handover or personal contact, Art. 41/E of Law No. 5395 applies. A complaint to the family court of the place where the directorate is located is possible within one week of learning of or being notified of the directorate's act and decision. Against the court's decision given on the complaint, the current regulation provides a special objection route within two weeks of notification; the decision of the objection authority is final. It must also be borne in mind that the two-week change applies to decisions given on or after 1 June 2024.[6][8]

This complaint is not an appeal application that re-determines to whom custody will belong. If both the lawfulness of the handover act and the correctness of the principal ruling are being argued in the same event, a separate authority, period and request are determined for each act. Applying to one does not count as preserving the period for the other.[1][8]

What can be done if the time limit is missed or the petition is rejected?

The rejection decision and cross-appeal

Under HMK Art. 346, an appeal petition filed after the time limit or directed against a final decision may be rejected. Under the current regulation, an appeal can be made against this rejection decision within two weeks of notification. In this application, the ground of rejection should be targeted; for example, a notification date wrongly accepted should be explained with the correct record.[1][6]

If the other side has appealed, the cross-appeal route in HMK Art. 348 can be assessed separately. A party that has let its period pass may apply by way of a reply petition to the appeal notified to it; the reply period is two weeks under Art. 347. However, if the principal application is withdrawn or is rejected by the BAM without reaching the merits, the cross-appeal application is also rejected. Because of this dependency, the cross-appeal route should not be planned in place of applying independently within one's own period.[1]

Improper notification and restoration of the former position

If a notification is irregular, the knowledge-date rule of Art. 32 of the Notification Law is examined. What the irregularity is, the actual date of learning and the records supporting it must be made concrete. Saying "it was not notified to me" does not automatically render ineffective a valid notification to the attorney in the file.[4]

If the period was missed for a reason beyond one's control, the conditions for restoration of the former position (eski hâle getirme) are investigated under HMK Arts. 95–98. The request must be made within two weeks of the obstacle ceasing and the missed act must also be performed within this period. For the appeal period the BAM, and for the appeal-on-points-of-law period the Court of Cassation, is competent. If the same result can be reached by another legal route, this route cannot be used; nor is every delay counted as an excuse.[1]

A request for a change of custody because of new facts that arise later is different. An assessment under TMK Art. 183 and HMK Art. 388, which regulates the nature of non-contentious decisions, does not retroactively revive a missed remedy period.[1][2]

Conclusion

An effective challenge to a custody decision depends first on choosing the right decision and the right route. In calculating periods, notification, learning and UETS records must be distinguished; the interim decision and the final ruling must be examined together but with their different legal functions in view. The petition's weight should lie not in repeating the dispute between the parents but in the concrete errors of the decision that affect the child's care, safety and relationships. If the limitation on appeal on points of law in a stand-alone custody change, the separate assessment of the personal contact ruling and the complaint route specific to the handover act are determined from the outset, the application will not be built on the wrong authority or the wrong period.[1][2][3][8]

Frequently Asked Questions

How many days is the appeal period against a custody decision?

The general rule is two weeks. Proper notification is taken into account under HMK Art. 345, and the starting point of learning under Art. 387 in non-contentious jurisdiction. Two weeks is not converted into a period of twenty or ten days by counting working days; the last day and the effect of holidays are calculated separately.[1]

Does the period start as soon as the reasoned decision appears in UYAP?

In the general notification-based regime, uploading a document to the system does not automatically replace proper notification. However, in non-contentious jurisdiction matters that have a knowledge rule, when and to what extent the person learned of the decision may also matter. A single answer cannot be given without determining the legal nature of the file.[1][4]

If I do not open the UETS message, does the period not start?

No. An electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the day it reached the address. Not opening the message, or not seeing the notification message, does not automatically postpone the statutory notification date. The UETS evidence record should be checked for the calculation.[4][5]

Does a custody change case go to the Court of Cassation?

A stand-alone custody change is a non-contentious jurisdiction matter within HMK Art. 382. A BAM decision given in this matter is closed to appeal on points of law under Art. 362(1)(ç). The remedy position of other rulings in the same file, such as personal contact, is examined separately.[1][3]

Can a new report about the child be submitted during the appeal?

That the document is new is not enough by itself. The limitations in HMK Art. 357, the exceptions, and the matters to be investigated of the court's own motion in custody are assessed together. The date of the report, why it could not be submitted earlier, and how it shows the current risk or an incomplete investigation must be explained.[1]

Is there always one week to object to an interim custody decision?

No. Interim custody based on TMK Art. 169 cannot be treated as the same as an interim injunction under HMK Art. 389. A request for reassessment by the same court, an objection specific to an interim injunction and a remedy against the final ruling are different procedures.[1][2][7]

Does child handover stop automatically when I file an appeal?

It must be determined which decision is being enforced. The finality of the final custody ruling and the enforcement of an interim custody or personal contact decision in force are different matters. If a complaint against the handover act is needed, the Art. 41/E route is assessed separately; one should not rely merely on filing an appeal petition.[1][8]

Is the appeal period for custody extended because of the summer holiday?

Actions and matters concerning custody fall within the judicial recess exception in HMK Art. 103. The one-week extension in Art. 104 is therefore not applied automatically in a stand-alone custody matter. For decisions given together with a divorce, the nature of the relevant action and part of the ruling must be examined separately.[1]

Can a final custody decision be changed later?

New facts affecting the child's interests may call for a fresh assessment under TMK Art. 183. This route does not bring back the remedy period of the earlier decision. In the new request, the changed conditions and how they affect the child should be shown.[1][2]

Sources

1 — Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, current consolidated text: in particular Arts. 92–104, 334–350, 353–357, 361–369, 382, 385, 387–389, 394, 445; provisional Art. 3 and provisional Art. 1 of Law No. 7035.

2 — Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, current consolidated text: Arts. 169, 182 and 183.

3 — 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 23.10.2025, E.2025/7089, K.2025/9181, official text of the decision: examination paragraphs 1–2 and the operative part.

4 — Notification Law No. 7201, current consolidated text: Arts. 7/a, 11, 32 and 33.

5 — PTT, Electronic Notification Frequently Asked Questions: the fifth day and the reading of an electronic notification.

6 — Law No. 7499, text of the law as adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM): Art. 37(9)–(10), provisional Art. 1 and Art. 40.

7 — Gözde Zeytin Çağrı, “Boşanma Davası Sırasındaki Geçici Velayet (Tedbiren Velayet) Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 16/1, 2026, pp. 291–312: in particular pp. 301–302; DOI: 10.54704/akdhfd.1650272.

8 — Child Protection Law No. 5395, current consolidated text: Arts. 41/A and 41/E.

9 — Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, 17.01.2019, E.2017/2066, K.2019/15, official text of the decision: reasoning on assessing the child's current situation and views.