Summary
A child’s unwillingness to see a mother or father does not, on its own, automatically lead to a change of custody or the removal of personal contact. The reason for the refusal must be examined together with the child’s safety, the past relationship, the conditions of the visits and the parents’ conduct. Ignoring a child’s genuine fear, or attributing every refusal to the other parent’s influence, can leave the examination incomplete. The appropriate solution is determined on the basis of concrete evidence, a current expert assessment and the child’s best interests. [1–4]
Why might a child not want to see the mother or father?
A refusal to visit may be the outward expression of quite different events. A long period without contact, estrangement, conflicts during handovers, changes in care routines or fear caused by a particular incident are among the reasons that can be investigated. If there is an allegation of violence or ill-treatment, the safety dimension must be addressed separately.
Sometimes a child finds it hard to show affection for one parent in order to preserve closeness with the other. Sometimes the visit schedule conflicts with school, sleep or health routines. These are possible explanations; none of them can be accepted as the real cause without examining the child’s own account and the case file.
Does every refusal mean the child has been influenced?
No. Explaining a child’s refusal directly with the label “parental alienation” does not replace investigating what actually happened. If influence is alleged, it must be shown which conduct occurred, when, and how it affected the child’s relationship. An adult’s assessment, or a list of signs found on the internet, does not amount to a clinical diagnosis of the child.
Likewise, not every negative statement by a child conclusively proves that the other parent used violence. Yet safety reports cannot be dismissed as worthless merely because they are raised in contested litigation. Taking what the child says seriously is different from presuming in advance that the event has been proven.
What is the difference between custody and personal contact?
Custody covers the rights and obligations concerning the child’s care, education and representation. Personal contact, by contrast, regulates the maintenance of the relationship between the child and the parent who does not live with the child. Not every case brought because the child does not attend visits has to concern a change of custody.
If the only problem is that the current visit arrangement does not suit the child’s needs, a re-regulation of personal contact may come into question. If it is alleged that the child’s care and development are endangered under the existing custody arrangement, requests concerning custody or protective measures are assessed separately. The request must clearly show the problem experienced and the solution sought.
Limits of the right to personal contact
Article 323 of the Turkish Civil Code regulates the right to request appropriate personal contact with a child who is not under one’s custody or has not been left in one’s care. Article 324 contains the parents’ duty to refrain from damaging the relationship, as well as the conditions for restricting or removing personal contact. Facts such as a risk to the child’s well-being and the use of the right contrary to its purpose are examined in concrete terms. [1]
These provisions do not require all visits to be continued in the same manner at any cost. Conversely, a dispute between adults alone is not enough to sever the child’s bond with the other parent. The court’s assessment is directed at the child’s best interests.
Which evidence matters for a child who refuses visits?
The examination should not focus only on the child’s reaction on the day of handover. When the refusal began, its connection to a specific event, how previous visits went and changes in the child’s daily life should be assessed together.
| Subject to be investigated | Information or records that may help | Limit of assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Start and continuity of the refusal | A dated timeline of events, records of visits and applications | A timeline prepared afterwards does not by itself prove that the events are accurate |
| Situation before and after visits | Expert observation, concrete teacher observations | Not every change in behavior stems from the visits |
| Allegation of safety risk or ill-treatment | Relevant health records, official applications, investigation information | Making an application does not mean the allegation has been established |
| Communication between the parents | Lawful messages and handover-plan correspondence | The context and integrity of the conversation must be preserved |
| Long period without contact | Attempts to arrange visits, cancellations and their reasons | A single missed visit does not explain the whole relationship |
| The child’s own account | A view obtained under suitable conditions and expert examination | No definite conclusion should be drawn from a single sentence |
Evidence should be submitted to the file with regard for the child’s private life and limited to the dispute. Continually filming the child, making the child repeat the same events again and again, or having the child collect recordings about the other parent is not a sound method of examination. The use of unlawfully obtained evidence also creates a separate problem. Methods of evidence are discussed in the article on evidence in a custody lawsuit.
Which questions should an expert examination answer?
The question “Does the child want to visit?” is not sufficient on its own. The conditions under which the refusal arose, the history of the relationship with the parent, current risks and the appropriate form of visits must also be investigated. Where necessary, the living conditions of both parents and the child’s care arrangement are examined.
It is important that an expert report separates observation, the parties’ accounts and evaluation. Beside a sentence spoken by the child, the report should state the date and conditions of the interview and the context of the statement. A parent’s failure to attend the expert interview, or continual obstruction of the necessary examination, may also matter in the assessment of the file; however, not every failure to attend produces the same result.
Does a report obtained for custody settle every detail of the visits?
No. A report on which parent the child will live with does not always sufficiently explain whether overnight visits with the other parent are safe. The duration and place of the visits, the need for supervision and a gradual arrangement may require a separate assessment.
In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) dated December 24, 2015, E.2015/16891, K.2015/24954, the file contained assessments of physical violence by the mother and of the child’s unwillingness to visit. While upholding the change of custody, the Chamber stated that a separate expert assessment was needed for overnight personal contact. The decision does not mean that the relationship must be severed in all refusal cases; it shows that custody and personal contact may be examined according to different needs. [2]
How do Court of Cassation decisions assess refusal, lack of interest and risk?
In the proceedings behind the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated December 7, 2023, E.2023/2784, K.2023/6018, the father’s failure to attend one meeting at the first stage was not considered sufficient on its own; it was stated that the father’s situation should be examined and suitable forms of contact investigated. In the renewed proceedings, facts in the file such as long-term lack of contact and non-participation in the social investigation were assessed, and the Court of Cassation upheld the outcome that no personal contact was to be established. [3]
Here, the regional court of appeal’s reasoning for the first remand must be distinguished from the Court of Cassation’s later final assessment. The decision does not lay down a rule that “a parent who fails to attend once cannot see the child.” The circumstances of the file as a whole are decisive; if new circumstances arise, a new arrangement may be considered separately.
A recent comparison: a refusal does not always require restricting the visits
In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated January 22, 2026, E.2025/8847, K.2026/800, it was taken into account that the social investigation found no serious risk that would restrict the existing overnight contact, together with sibling bonds and other findings in the file. The decision restricting personal contact was reversed. This decision shows that a conclusion cannot be built solely on the child’s preference without investigating the reasons for the refusal and the concrete risks. [4]
This example should not be read as meaning that a decision of non-prosecution (takipsizlik) in an investigation removes all risks in every custody file. The result of the criminal process and the assessment of protecting the child in family law are handled together with the other evidence in the specific file. What the three decisions show together is that refusal behavior alone does not produce a solution applicable to every file.
By what means can the visit arrangement be reassessed?
Where it is found to be in the child’s interests, a re-examination of the visit durations, whether visits include overnight stays, or the handover arrangement may be requested. Gradual visits on an expert’s recommendation, or suitable supervision conditions, may be considered. These measures are not automatic; their feasibility and their effects on the child must be explained.
If there is an urgent safety concern
A concrete and current allegation of danger must be reported to the competent authorities without delay, together with the dates of the events and supporting information. Depending on the state of the file, a change to the interim personal contact arrangement and protective or supportive measures are considered. In allegations of violence, whether the protective routes under Law No. 6284 are applicable is also examined separately. [5–6]
The existence of a risk allegation is different from all visits automatically ceasing indefinitely. Under which conditions a valid decision will be changed requires judicial assessment. The child’s immediate safety and the process concerning the enforcement of the continuing decision must be managed together.
If visits have not been possible for a long time
After a long interruption, the effect on the child of returning directly to the previous overnight arrangement may be investigated. A request for a gradual re-establishment of the relationship must be justified not as a punishment, but as supporting the child’s adjustment, safety and the healthy continuation of the relationship. The parents’ contribution to a suitable visit plan and their participation in the expert work matter in this process.
What happens if the child does not want to go at the handover?
The enforcement of decisions on the delivery of the child and on personal contact with the child is subject, in the current system, to a special procedure carried out through judicial support and victim services directorates. Accounts of former enforcement practice should not be transferred directly to today’s process. The task of the directorates is not to issue a new substantive decision on custody or personal contact in place of the court. [5, 7]
The child’s reaction at handover should be recorded together with the observations of the officials concerned and the procedures carried out. A single record does not always explain all the reasons for the refusal; it is important that recurring problems are taken to an expert examination and, if necessary, to the court’s assessment.
A child who genuinely does not want to go is not the same fact as a parent obstructing contact in breach of the decision. Conversely, merely saying “the child does not want to” does not leave the adult’s conduct outside the examination. Sanctions and consequences for custody may be considered when their own statutory conditions are met; they do not apply automatically because of the child’s refusal.
Conclusion
A child’s refusal of the other parent is a situation whose reasons must first be understood. Safety reports must be investigated, allegations of influence must be made concrete, and the child must not be given the burden of resolving the adults’ dispute. Custody, the form of personal contact and protective measures are assessed separately in order to find a solution suited to the child’s needs.
For the adequacy of the examination, you may refer to the articles on the social investigation report, and on the assessment of the child’s account, the child’s views in a custody lawsuit.
Related articles: The Right of a Parent Living Abroad to Have Contact with the Child; The Right to Respect for Family Life: Family Unity, Personal Contact with the Child and Routes of Application; Action for Modification of Custody: Conditions, Evidence and New Living Conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the child does not want to see the father, is personal contact removed?
It is not removed automatically. The reason for the refusal, safety, the history of the relationship and the expert assessment are examined. Depending on the outcome, the existing arrangement may continue, be changed or be restricted under the statutory conditions.
Is the child not attending visits enough to change custody?
It cannot be regarded as sufficient on its own. The existing care arrangement, the parents’ conduct and the child’s best interests are assessed together. Not every visit problem requires a change of custody.
How is it shown that the other parent has influenced the child?
A general accusation is not enough; dated events, lawful communication records and an expert assessment are needed. The child’s preference is not, by itself, proof of influence.
Can supervised visits with the child be requested?
Such an arrangement may be requested on the basis of concrete needs and risks. Its suitability, duration, method and feasibility are assessed by the court; supervision is not mandatory in every refusal case.
Is an old social investigation report enough to resolve the visit problem?
The scope and currency of the report matter. If a report prepared for custody does not explain a newly emerged fear or the effects of overnight visits, a supplementary examination may be needed.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 4721, the Turkish Civil Code, in particular Arts. 182–183, 323–324 and 346. Official legislation record.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi), December 24, 2015, E.2015/16891, K.2015/24954. Full decision record — De Jure.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, December 7, 2023, E.2023/2784, K.2023/6018. The reasoning of the first remand has been assessed separately from the final affirmation. Full decision record — De Jure.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, January 22, 2026, E.2025/8847, K.2026/800. Official UYAP decision text.
- Law No. 5395, the Child Protection Law, Arts. 4–5 and Art. 41/A and following on the delivery of the child and personal contact. Official legislation PDF.
- Law No. 6284 on the Protection of the Family and Prevention of Violence Against Women. Official legislation PDF.
- Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of Judicial Support and Victim Services, Frequently Asked Questions on the Process of Delivery of the Child and Establishing Personal Contact with the Child. Official information page.