Can a Custody Action Be Brought in Türkiye If the Child Lives Abroad?

Research and legislation check: 11 October 2026

If the child lives abroad, a custody action may in some circumstances be brought in Türkiye. However, the Turkish nationality of the child or of the parents does not in every case make Turkish courts competent. First, the child's habitual residence, the international convention to be applied, existing decisions and the lawfulness of any change of place must be determined. Where the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention applies, the primary jurisdiction belongs to the authorities of the State in which the child's habitual residence is located; situations such as divorce proceedings in Türkiye, a special transfer of jurisdiction or urgent protection are assessed separately. [1–3]

For this reason, the correct starting question is not only "In which city should I file the case?" First, it must be clarified whether Türkiye has jurisdiction to make the decision sought concerning this child. Obtaining a divorce in Türkiye, recognising a foreign custody decision here and having the child's custody re-determined are different legal needs.

Which country's courts have jurisdiction over a child living abroad?

International jurisdiction determines which State's authorities may examine the dispute; territorial jurisdiction determines which court within that State is to be approached. Subject-matter jurisdiction indicates the type of court, such as the family court. The applicable law is a separate question: the fact that a Turkish court has jurisdiction does not mean that every issue must necessarily be resolved under Turkish substantive law.

Article 1(2) of the Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK) reserves the international conventions to which Türkiye is a party. For this reason, rather than beginning the jurisdictional examination directly with Article 40 or 41 of Law No. 5718, the convention that may apply to the dispute should be researched. The 1996 Hague Convention entered into force for Türkiye on 1 February 2017. It covers measures to protect the child's person and property, parental responsibility and personal contact; it applies from birth until the age of 18. Maintenance obligations, however, fall outside the scope of this convention. [1–3]

The basic rule: the child's habitual residence

Under Article 5 of the Convention, where the child's habitual residence is in a Contracting State, the primary jurisdiction lies with the judicial or administrative authorities of that State. That rule does not change merely because the child is on holiday in Türkiye, is registered there in the population register, or because one of the parents is Turkish. In a case where the Convention's jurisdictional system applies, the system cannot be circumvented by relying on a jurisdictional provision of domestic law that seems more convenient. [1, 4]

For example, a parent who wishes to bring a case in Türkiye concerning a child whose habitual residence is in another State that is party to the Convention must explain not only their own Turkish nationality but the specific provision of the Convention that establishes the jurisdiction of the Turkish authorities and the conditions of that provision. The other party's argument that "the child's school and daily life are in another country" is therefore a substantial question of jurisdiction.

Which possibility should be examined first?

The table does not by itself give an answer as to whether a case may be brought. The entry into force between the States concerned, objections to accession, application in time and the nature of the measure requested must also be checked separately. The mere signature of a convention by a State does not show that the convention is in force in its relations with Türkiye. [1, 2, 4]

How is habitual residence determined, and is a residence registration sufficient?

Habitual residence is a connection that serves to determine the place where the child's life is actually centred. It is not identical to a population register entry, a residence permit, nationality or the concept of domicile. The continuity of the child's stay, the arrangements for school and care, social and family ties, the child's age, and the purpose and conditions of the move are assessed together. The intention of the parents may be important, but a unilateral declaration that excludes the child's real life is not sufficient. [4]

There is no automatic "six-month" rule for habitual residence that applies in every case. The six-month joint residence criterion in Article 168 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK), which concerns local jurisdiction in divorce cases, cannot be turned into the general period determining the child's habitual residence. Nor does the date of entry in a passport by itself prove that the centre of life has changed. [1, 5]

How is a temporary trip distinguished from settlement?

Hypothetically, a child living in another country with their family spends the summer holiday in Türkiye and has a return ticket. This does not automatically make Türkiye the habitual residence. By contrast, where a lawful permanent move, the closing of the previous home, a lasting change in care arrangements and the start of a new school life are assessed together, a different result may be reached.

Once a dispute arises, presenting only a new school enrolment may not be sufficient. The other party may argue that the enrolment was made unilaterally after the return date agreed upon. In such a case the court must examine not only the new living arrangement but also the original scope of the trip, the consent given and the lawfulness of the retention. A consent to a holiday and a consent to permanent settlement should not be treated as the same. [1, 8]

What happens if the habitual residence changes while the case is pending?

For the 1996 Convention, it is not correct to treat jurisdiction as fixed forever at the date the action was brought. If a new habitual residence is lawfully established in another Contracting State, jurisdiction may change under Article 5(2). Wrongful removal is assessed under Article 7, and special transfer of jurisdiction under Articles 8–9. By contrast, measures taken by the earlier competent authority may continue in effect under the conditions of Article 14. The continuation of a court's jurisdiction and the continuing effect of a decision already given are different matters. This distinction is particularly emphasised in the literature. [1, 13]

In which situations may a Turkish custody decision be given while the child is in another country?

Is it sufficient to bring a divorce action in Türkiye?

No. Where the child's habitual residence is in another Contracting State, a Turkish court hearing a divorce, separation or annulment action under Article 10 of the 1996 Convention may take protective measures concerning the child only if certain conditions are cumulatively met:

• Turkish law must allow that court to take those measures.
• When the proceedings begin, the habitual residence of one of the parents must be in Türkiye, and one of the parents must hold parental responsibility over the child.
• The parents and the other persons holding parental responsibility must accept that jurisdiction.
• The exercise of jurisdiction must be in accordance with the child's best interests. [1]

Accordingly, the statement "We are both Turkish and want the divorce in Türkiye" is not sufficient in every file. For example, if the whole family lives in another country, the requirement that one of the parents have a habitual residence in Türkiye may itself create a problem. Nor should an acceptance statement be confused with mere consent to divorce; it must be assessed in relation to jurisdiction over the child.

This jurisdiction does not remove the jurisdiction under Articles 5–9 of the Convention. Moreover, when the divorce or similar proceedings end, the special jurisdiction based on Article 10 also ends. A divorce obtained in Türkiye many years ago does not bind every later custody modification action to the same court. [1, 13]

The conduct of divorce proceedings for spouses living abroad is explained in our article divorce in Türkiye for persons living abroad and foreign spouses.

If the child is a Turkish national, can jurisdiction be transferred to Türkiye?

Articles 8–9 of the 1996 Convention allow, exceptionally, for jurisdiction to be transferred to the authorities of another Contracting State that may better assess the child's best interests in a particular matter. The child's nationality, the place where the child's property is located, the country in which the parents' marriage case is being heard, or a substantial connection with the child may be important in this examination.

However, nationality is not an automatic jurisdiction but a connection that may be used in the assessment of a transfer. The competent authorities must act in the manner provided for in the Convention. Parents cannot complete this process merely by signing a protocol stating "Türkiye has jurisdiction" between themselves. The party requesting the transfer must show concretely why the evidence can better be gathered in Türkiye and what the benefit to the child would be. The other parent may argue that expert examination in the child's current environment is more suitable. [1]

What is the position for refugee children or children whose habitual residence cannot be determined?

Article 6 of the Convention confers jurisdiction on the authorities of the State in which refugee children, and children who have been internationally displaced because of disturbances in their countries, are located. There is also a special provision for children whose habitual residence cannot be determined. This provision is not a general exception applying in the same way to every foreign child or every migrant family; the concrete circumstances must be shown. [1]

If the child has been abducted from Türkiye to another country, is a custody action enough?

A custody decision and the actual return of the child are not the same result. Where the child has been wrongfully removed from Türkiye, or the return agreed upon after a permitted trip has been prevented, Article 7 of the 1996 Convention may preserve the jurisdiction of the State of the earlier habitual residence. In such a case, the fact that the child is now in another country does not mean that the jurisdiction of the Turkish authorities has immediately ended. [1]

For the conditions of a return application, see our article international child abduction and return of the child.

When does a wrongful removal change jurisdiction?

The assessment under Article 7 is based on the custody rights existing under the law of the habitual residence immediately before the removal or retention. It is important whether those rights were actually being exercised, or would have been exercised had the removal not occurred. The right may arise not only from a custody judgment but also from the law or from a legally effective agreement.

For the jurisdiction of the earlier State to end, a new habitual residence must first have been established. In addition, all holders of custody rights must have subsequently consented to the removal or retention, or the conditions of Article 7(1)(b) must be met together. In the second case, the child must have lived in the new State for at least one year from the date on which the holder of the right learned or should have learned of the child's whereabouts; during that period no return application must have been made and be still pending; and the child must have settled into the new environment. The mere passage of one year does not automatically change jurisdiction. [1]

How are the return application and the right of contact protected?

The 1980 Hague Convention provides a separate route for the return of a child under 16 years of age, where its conditions are met. A return decision is not a final decision on the merits of custody. An application through the central authority in Türkiye, the proceedings in the country where the child is located and, where necessary, the urgent protection routes there must be considered together. The explanation of the Ministry of Justice also separately notes applications for personal contact with the child. [8, 9]

The time periods must not be confused: the one-year assessment in Article 12 of the 1980 Convention relates to the initiation of proceedings before the relevant judicial or administrative authority from the date of the wrongful removal or retention. The start and function of the one-year condition in Article 7 of the 1996 Convention are different. No year needs to be awaited for a return application, and once a year has passed, each application does not lapse automatically. [1, 8]

For the exercise of the right of contact with the child from abroad, our article the right of a parent living abroad to contact the child may also be examined.

What happens if the country in which the child lives is not a party to the 1996 Hague Convention?

In such a case, the conclusions "Turkish courts have no jurisdiction at all" or "anyone who is a Turkish national may bring a case in Türkiye" cannot be drawn directly. First, other applicable international conventions and bilateral arrangements must be examined. The relationship between the 1996 Convention and the 1961 Hague arrangement must also be examined in relation to the States concerned and the subject matter. Then, insofar as its scope permits, the provisions of Law No. 5718 are applied. [1, 3]

Moreover, the fact that another State is not a party to the 1996 Convention does not render all its provisions ineffective. For example, the power of urgent protection for a child located in Türkiye and the provisions of the Convention on applicable law have different scope rules. Scholarship also explains that the effect in other States of a measure taken under the jurisdiction based on the Convention is not the same as that of a measure based only on domestic jurisdiction. [1, 14]

How are Articles 40 and 41 of the Law No. 5718 applied?

Article 40 of Law No. 5718 subjects the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts, as a rule, to the domestic rules on territorial jurisdiction. Article 41, which concerns the status of Turkish persons, provides a graduated arrangement for actions that have not been or cannot be brought in a foreign country. First, the court territorially competent in Türkiye applies; if none exists, the place where the person is resident; if the person is not resident in Türkiye, the last place of residence in Türkiye is considered. If none of these exists, one of the courts of Ankara, İstanbul or İzmir becomes competent. [3]

Ankara, İstanbul and İzmir are not the first and unlimited choices. The personal and subject-matter conditions of Article 41 and the priority of a foreign pending action and of the convention must be investigated. Once the jurisdiction of the family court in Türkiye has been determined, where there is no family court the civil court of first instance in that place may hear the matter in its capacity as a family court. The same local-jurisdiction reasoning should not be copied across an independent custody matter, a custody arrangement within a divorce judgment and a request for recognition. [3, 6, 7]

What does the Court of Cassation's decision of 5 December 2022 show?

In its decision of 5 December 2022, E. 2022/13987, K. 2022/17422, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) examined a jurisdictional dispute between the Pertek Civil Court of First Instance and the Ankara 19th Family Court. In the case, where the mother, the father and the children had foreign addresses recorded in the system, Article 21 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 41 of Law No. 5718 were considered. It was stated that no exclusive or special jurisdiction existed and that no timely objection to jurisdiction had been made to the court first seised; the Pertek Civil Court of First Instance was accordingly designated as the court acting as a family court. [10]

This decision shows the importance of local jurisdiction and of objection in custody disputes with foreign connections. However, the published reasoning does not examine the conditions for applying the 1996 Convention. For this reason, it cannot be concluded from the decision that in every case within the scope of the Convention the silence of the parties gives jurisdiction to Turkish courts.

Which country's law does a Turkish court apply?

Under Article 15 of the 1996 Convention, the authority exercising its jurisdiction under the Convention applies, as a rule, its own law; where the child's protection requires it, it may exceptionally apply or take into account the law of another State with a substantial connection. Parental responsibility arising by operation of law is assessed under the separate conflict rules of Article 16. For this reason, the question of who currently holds responsibility should not be reduced to the same question as which law will govern the court's new measure. [1]

That the law designated in the applicable-law section of the Convention belongs to a State that is not a party does not prevent that law from being applied. This universal application rule is set out in Article 20. In the area not replaced by the Convention, provisions such as Article 14(3) of Law No. 5718 may also become important: the law to which the custody question in a divorce is connected, the common national law under Article 14(1), the law of the common habitual residence and, lastly, Turkish law are determined in that order. This order cannot be applied to all cross-border custody files while disregarding the 1996 Convention. [1, 3]

Are recognising a foreign custody decision and modifying it the same thing?

No. Recognition concerns the acceptance of the legal effects of a foreign decision; enforcement (tenfiz) or the procedures of enforceability under the convention concern the compulsory implementation of the decision where it is necessary. Modification of custody, by contrast, is the re-assessment of the child's care and decision arrangements because of new circumstances. [1, 3]

Where the recognition regime of the 1996 Convention applies, measures are as a rule recognised by operation of law under Article 23, without prejudice to the grounds for non-recognition. The person concerned may request a decision on recognition or non-recognition under Article 24. Where compulsory implementation is required, the route of enforceability or registration under Article 26 is separately assessed. It cannot be said that every foreign custody decision must necessarily be subject to the same recognition-and-enforcement action under Law No. 5718. The time application of the Convention must also be checked under Article 53. [1]

Under the regime of Law No. 5718 outside the Convention, the conditions in Article 50 and following become important. Finality and the other conditions are examined under that regime; reciprocity is not required for recognition, whereas enforcement separately raises Article 54(1)(a). The fact that a decision bears an apostille does not mean that these legal assessments have been carried out. [3]

The fact that, in a recognition or enforcement request, the merits of the decision cannot be re-examined does not mean that no change can be sought before the competent authority in future. In a request for modification, first which State was competent at that date is examined, and then what the new facts mean for the child's best interests. In cases where Turkish law applies, Article 183 of the TMK is important in relation to these new facts; however, it does not by itself create international jurisdiction. [1, 5]

The conditions for recognition and enforcement are explained in detail in our article recognition and enforcement of a foreign custody decision.

What happens if an action is brought in Türkiye and abroad at the same time?

The belief that the parent who first applies will prevail in every case is wrong. Article 13 of the 1996 Convention, read with Articles 5–10, addresses the situation in which a corresponding measure has been requested in advance before the competent authority of another Contracting State and is still under examination. The other competent authority may be required to refrain from exercising jurisdiction unless the earlier authority abandons the exercise of its jurisdiction. Not every foreign file is automatically treated as an obstacle without examining its subject matter and its basis of jurisdiction. [1]

The petition should include the foreign court in which the file is pending, the date of filing, the requests made, any interim decisions and the current stage. A file that is concealed and surfaces later may produce contradictory decisions and enforcement difficulties. If there is a return action, Article 16 of the 1980 Convention, which limits a decision on the merits of custody while a return application is pending, must also be taken into account. [8]

Does a Turkish court send the file directly to a foreign court?

A rejection on grounds of international lack of jurisdiction and the sending of a file between two courts within Türkiye are different procedures. In its decision of 27 September 2023, E. 2022/11-772, K. 2023/865, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) contains statements to the effect that, where a Turkish court objects to its lack of jurisdiction, it is not necessary to indicate the competent foreign court, and that a court may not make a decision sending the case to a court of another country. The Assembly quashed the decision of resistance (direnme kararı) in the concrete case. [11]

This decision concerns not custody but an international insurance dispute; here it is used only for the general procedural distinction. The authority-to-authority special transfer of jurisdiction under Articles 8–9 of the 1996 Convention must be assessed separately from this ordinary question of rejection and referral. Time limits must not be allowed to pass on the assumption that, once a case has been filed in the wrong country, the file will move automatically to the correct foreign court.

How are urgent protection, hearing the child and evidence handled?

Which authority should be approached if the child is in danger?

If the child is in Türkiye, the necessary urgent protective measures may come into consideration under Article 11 of the 1996 Convention. Once the competent authority has taken appropriate measures in the substantive case, the continuation of the urgent measure is reassessed. Temporary measures with territorial effect under Article 12 are separate, with their own conditions and limits. The provision of urgent protection does not show that permanent custody jurisdiction has automatically passed to Türkiye. [1]

If the child is in danger abroad, access to the urgent protection authorities in the place where the child is located should first be considered. The child's safety should not be deferred while the outcome of a file in Türkiye is awaited. The central authority may be used for cooperation, information and the obtaining of documents; however, a cooperation channel does not replace the court or emergency service of the foreign country. [1, 9]

Why is the child's view important?

Once the question of jurisdiction is resolved, the substance of custody is assessed on the basis of daily care, education, health, safety, bonds with the parents and a sustainable living arrangement. The child's view should be obtained by a method appropriate to their age and maturity; the child should not be pressed to choose between the parents. The mere claim that higher income or a better school is available abroad does not conclude the whole assessment. [5, 7]

In the decision of the Constitutional Court (AYM) in Pervin Hazan Yağcı, B. No: 2022/60016, dated 30 April 2024, a dispute over a change of custody and personal contact was examined, which arose after the child had travelled with the father to Cyprus. Expert reports, the child's statement, the participation of the parties and the reasoning were assessed; the application was held inadmissible because it was manifestly ill-founded. The fact that the child returned to Türkiye during the proceedings also appears in the file. [12]

This decision is important for showing the need for a concrete examination of the child's circumstances and for explaining the reasoning. It is not a decision that Turkish courts have jurisdiction over every child living abroad, or that every relocation is considered lawful.

Which documents should be prepared before an application?

The documents should be placed in chronological order, and it should be clear where the child lived, with whom, and on the basis of which consent. The translation and certification of foreign official documents is determined by the type of document and the applicable convention. Beyond the general rule in Article 224 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), the exemption from certification of documents sent or delivered under Article 43 of the 1996 Convention should not be overlooked. It is wrong both to add an unconditional apostille requirement to all documents and to treat all documents as exempt. [1, 6]

If foreign law is to be applied, establishing its content is the duty of the court; the parties may assist with the relevant legislation, decisions and translations. Under Article 2 of Law No. 5718, the failure to determine the content of foreign law despite the necessary investigation is not the same situation as the foreign law never having been investigated. The child's address and health records should be shared only with the necessary authorities and through a secure channel. Articles 37 and 41–42 of the Convention are important for security, purpose limitation and confidentiality in the transfer of information. [1, 3]

How should the proceedings, costs and legal remedies be planned?

Before an application, the request should be clarified: whether it concerns the initial custody arrangement, modification of an existing decision, personal contact, urgent measures, recognition and enforcement, or return. Standing, parental responsibility and representation are determined accordingly. Where there is a conflict of interest between the child and the legal representative, the need for a trustee to represent the child is separately examined. Granting a power of attorney to a lawyer from abroad may facilitate procedures; a power of attorney does not confer international jurisdiction on the court. [3, 5, 6]

Fees, notifications, translation, certification of documents, expert examination and procedures in the foreign country all affect the total cost. It is wrong to give a fixed action fee or a month of conclusion. For a Turkish citizen residing abroad, the security-for-costs provisions and exemptions under Articles 84–85 of the HMK are assessed; for a foreign person, Article 48 of Law No. 5718. The exemption provided in Article 85 of the HMK only for actions aimed at protecting the interests of a minor should be reviewed with particular care in this respect. The conditions for legal aid are also separately examined. [3, 6]

Which distinctions in the time limits for applications are important?

Under Article 20 of the HMK, the service of the decision is the starting point for a final decision at the time it is given; finality is the starting point for a decision that becomes final without an appeal; and service of the rejection decision is the basis where the application is rejected. This procedure is not an automatic route for sending a file to a foreign court. Moreover, an independent non-contentious matter and a custody arrangement within a divorce judgment should not be treated the same for the purposes of legal remedies. Because of the limitations in Article 362 of the HMK, not every decision is open to review by the Court of Cassation. [6]

The country where the decision is to be enforced must also be considered before the action is brought. A decision taken in Türkiye does not bring about direct delivery of a child abroad. Recognition, enforcement or a separate application may be required under the relevant convention or the law of the foreign country. In relation to the implementation of decisions for the delivery of children and personal contact in Türkiye, the system of judicial support and victim services under Article 41/A et seq. of Law No. 5395 is taken into account. Implementation in the foreign country proceeds through the authorities of that country. [1, 15]

The article on the general scope of custody, "What Is the Right of Custody?", and our legal services description for custody disputes complete the domestic-law framework. This guide is for general information; a concrete application must be assessed by reference to the States concerned, dates and existing decisions.

Conclusion

The fact that a child lives abroad does not in every case prevent a custody action in Türkiye; nor does Turkish nationality by itself identify an authority competent to hear the action. A sound application must first identify the applicable convention and the child's habitual residence, then the conditions for special jurisdiction. Divorce in Türkiye, recognition of a foreign decision, modification of custody and return requests must each be examined on their own terms.

In practice, the decisive preparation is to compile the child's chronology of life, gather all decisions, explain the scope of the consent to travel, and determine where the resulting decision will be enforced. In this way, the loss of time caused by a process in an unsuitable court may be reduced, and requests for the protection of the child's safety, stability and relationship with both parents can be brought before the correct authority.

Frequently Asked Questions

My child is a Turkish national but lives abroad; can I bring a case in Türkiye?

It is possible under certain conditions. However, citizenship alone is not sufficient. First the applicable convention, the child's habitual residence and the basis of the jurisdiction of the Turkish authorities must be established. Relevant explanation

If I divorce in Türkiye, will the child's custody also be decided here?

Not in every case. Where the child's habitual residence is in another Contracting State, conditions such as the habitual residence of the parent, parental responsibility, acceptance of jurisdiction and the child's best interests under Article 10 of the 1996 Convention are separately examined. Relevant explanation

Is it sufficient that the child has a population register entry in Türkiye?

No. A population register entry is not identical to habitual residence. The places where the child's actual care, school, housing and social life continue are assessed together. Relevant explanation

If one year passes after a child is abducted, do Turkish courts lose jurisdiction?

Not automatically. Under Article 7 of the 1996 Convention, conditions such as a new habitual residence, the holder's knowledge, the status of any return application and settlement in the new environment are regulated together. The one-year assessment in a return application is separate from this. Relevant explanation

Does having a foreign custody decision recognised transfer custody to me?

No. Recognition concerns the legal effects of the existing decision. A modification request seeking custody to be given to you is assessed before the competent authority under new conditions and the child's best interests. Relevant explanation

If the mother and father agree, is the court in Türkiye always competent?

No. An agreement between the parents alone does not replace all the conditions of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the divorce court and the special transfer of jurisdiction under the convention depend on different conditions. Relevant explanation

Can an application also be made in Türkiye while a case is pending in another country?

It depends on the nature of the request and the applicable rule. The jurisdiction, subject matter and stage of the earlier file are examined. Article 13 of the 1996 Convention or the special provisions concerning return proceedings may affect the second authority's action. Relevant explanation

Can I seek urgent protection while my child is on holiday in Türkiye?

Where there is a concrete urgent danger, protective routes separate from the substantive custody jurisdiction may be considered. An urgent measure under Article 11 of the 1996 Convention does not automatically give Türkiye permanent custody jurisdiction. Relevant explanation

Can I follow the process through a lawyer while living abroad?

Representation is possible with an appropriate power of attorney. The form of the power of attorney and the special powers required are checked. The court may separately assess whether personal attendance or the hearing of the child is needed. Relevant explanation

Does a decision I obtain in Türkiye produce immediate delivery of the child from abroad?

Not on its own. Recognition and enforcement of the decision in the country where the child is located may be required, and, where its conditions are met, a return process may also be needed. The route for implementation should therefore be planned from the outset. Relevant explanation

Sources and legal bases

1. HCCH, Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, in particular Arts. 2–16, 20, 23–28, 34–37, 41–43, 50–53. Official full text.
2. HCCH, Status table of the 1996 Child Protection Convention, entry for Türkiye. Official status table.
3. Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun), in particular Arts. 1–2, 14, 40–41, 48, 50–59. Official consolidated text.
4. HCCH, Practical Handbook on the Operation of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, 2014, in particular §§ 3.10–3.13, 4.4–4.11. Official handbook.
5. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medenî Kanunu), in particular Arts. 21, 168, 182–183, 323–326, 339, 342, 426. Official consolidated text.
6. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Arts. 19–20, 74, 84–85, 224, 334 et seq., 345, 362, 382–387. Official consolidated text.
7. Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts (Aile Mahkemelerinin Kuruluş, Görev ve Yargılama Usullerine Dair Kanun), Arts. 2, 4–5. Official consolidated text.
8. HCCH, Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Uluslararası Çocuk Kaçırmanın Hukukî Veçhelerine Dair Sözleşme), in particular Arts. 3–5, 12–13, 16, 19, 21. Official full text.
9. Ministry of Justice, Directorate General for Foreign Relations and European Union, Child Abduction and Custody (Çocuk Kaçırma ve Velayet). Explanation of the central authority.
10. Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi), 5 December 2022, E. 2022/13987, K. 2022/17422. Ministry of Justice decision record and full text.
11. Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), 27 September 2023, E. 2022/11-772, K. 2023/865, in particular reasoning §§ 23–30. Full text published by Karamercan Hukuk — secondary publication.
12. Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), Pervin Hazan Yağcı, B. No: 2022/60016, 30 April 2024, in particular §§ 9, 25–31 and the operative part. Official decision record; full text published by Hukuki Haber — secondary publication.
13. Ayşe Elif Ulusu Karataş, "The 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children and Its Effect on Turkish Private International Law" ("Velayet Sorumluluğu ve Çocukların Korunması Hakkında Tedbirler Yönünden Yetki, Uygulanacak Hukuk, Tanıma, Tenfiz ve İşbirliğine Dair 1996 Tarihli Lahey Sözleşmesi ve Türk Milletlerarası Özel Hukukuna Etkisi"), MHB, 37(2), 2017, pp. 911–1003; in particular pp. 931–933, 939–940. Full text of the journal.
14. Dilara Kaynar, "The International Jurisdiction of Turkish Courts in Disputes Arising from Family Law" ("Türk Mahkemelerinin Aile Hukukundan Doğan Uyuşmazlıklarda Milletlerarası Yetkisi"), Karatekin Hukuk Dergisi, No. 9, 2026, pp. 1–39; in particular pp. 25–27. DOI:10.70011/kahd1953708. Full text of the journal.
15. Child Protection Law No. 5395 (Çocuk Koruma Kanunu), Art. 41/A et seq. Official consolidated text.