What does joint custody cover, and what does it not resolve by itself?
Custody (velayet) includes the rights and obligations concerning care, education, representation and the protection of the child’s person and property. Article 336 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) provides that custody is exercised jointly while the marriage continues. Joint custody after divorce, however, cannot be explained by applying that provision mechanically on its own; international obligations, judicial decisions and the best interests of the child are assessed together. TMK Art. 182 and Art. 339 also form the basic framework for provisions concerning the child. [1]
Decisions that call for joint decision-making, such as choosing a school, a significant medical intervention or a move that changes the child’s settled way of life, should be distinguished from care decisions such as homework time, meal routines and daily transport. A plan that makes every detail of daily care subject to the other parent’s approval leaves the child’s life constantly waiting and open to conflict. Conversely, leaving the important decisions entirely to one side while merely writing “joint custody” in the heading does not achieve real sharing either.
Joint custody is not alternating, equal-time residence
Exercising custody jointly and the time the child spends between two homes are different matters. During the school term the child may live mainly in one home, with regular weekends, holidays and day-to-day contact with the other parent. Important decisions can still be taken jointly within this arrangement. Conversely, dividing the calendar equally does not mean that the parents take joint responsibility for education and health.
School commute length, sleep routine, the care needs of a young child, sibling relationships and special health needs should be taken into account in particular. A “one week with the mother, one week with the father” rule cannot be considered suitable for every child. Before establishing mathematical equality between the parents, the plan should ensure that the child leads a stable daily life.
Is joint custody possible in Türkiye? What do Court of Cassation decisions say?
The subject and limit of the 2017 decision
The decision of the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) dated 20.02.2017, E.2016/15771, K.2017/1737, is an important decision showing that joint custody cannot be regarded as clearly contrary to Turkish public policy. However, the case concerned a child born outside marriage to two British citizens. The court of first instance had rejected the joint custody request on public policy grounds; the Court of Cassation held that the relevant foreign law should be researched and the merits examined. [2]
This decision does not mean that “joint custody is granted in every divorce.” In the decision, joint custody was not established directly; the categorical ground for rejection was removed. In a current case with a foreign element, the applicability of the 1996 Hague Convention should also be examined separately. The value of the decision is that it shows joint custody cannot be treated as outside the legal system merely because of its name.
The 2025 decision: the agreement must be workable in daily life
In the decision of the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber dated 27.03.2025, E.2024/5611, K.2025/3196, the mother and father had both requested joint custody, but there was a continuing disagreement about where the child would live. Taking into account together that the parties were in different cities and the dispute over residence, the joint custody arrangement that had been established was not found appropriate. The Chamber required both living environments and the child and parents to be examined again by experts. [3]
The decision does not impose an absolute prohibition on all parents living in different cities. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the statement “we both want it” alone is not enough. If it is unclear by whom, where and on what schedule care will be provided, the benefit that joint custody would bring the child cannot be shown concretely.
By what criteria does the court assess a joint custody request?
The child’s physical and emotional safety, the existing care arrangement, developmental needs, the parents’ ability to communicate and the sustainability of the proposed plan are examined together. A higher income, a larger home, or the other spouse’s being at fault in the divorce is not, on its own, a criterion that determines the custody outcome. The concrete effect of these facts on the child must be explained.
It is important to obtain the child’s views in a manner suited to the child’s age and maturity. However, forcing the child to choose between mother and father, placing the responsibility for the outcome of the case on the child, or coaching the child on what to say is not a healthy approach. The purpose of an expert interview is to understand the child’s needs and relationships. The child’s views are taken into account; the whole burden of the decision is not left to the child.
Where there is violence or coercion, a communication plan alone is not enough
In a file involving physical violence, threats, use of the child as a tool against the other parent, or behavior aimed at constant control, the suggestion to “talk more often” is not a safe solution. Protection orders, health records, relevant applications and expert assessments should be submitted to the file. An allegation should be distinguished from a proven incident, and serious risks should not be dismissed as merely a communication problem between the parties.
Where necessary, a safe handover location, a limited communication channel, supervised contact with an expert or other protective measures are considered. A joint custody request does not justify the violation of an existing protection order. If the child’s best interests require a different arrangement, the court determines the appropriate solution, including leaving custody with a single parent. The protective provisions beginning with TMK Art. 346 are important in this assessment. [1]
How is a parenting plan prepared?
The plan may be a part of the uncontested divorce protocol or a separate document submitted to the court. Writing a private text alone does not change custody; the necessary judicial decision must be obtained. The arrangement should be clear enough for third parties to read and apply. Expressions such as “the child sees the other parent whenever the child wishes” or “all decisions are made jointly” do not resolve a dispute where there is no schedule or method.
| Subject of the plan | Point to be made concrete | Uncertainty prevented |
|---|---|---|
| Living arrangement | Main home during the school term, school commute and care responsibility | Conflict over address and daily care |
| Time schedule | Day, time, start of holidays, handover and return | Renegotiation at every contact |
| Important decisions | Method of consultation for school, planned treatment and permanent relocation | A unilateral fait accompli |
| Expenses | Ordinary expenses, special expenses, payment date and sharing of documents | Later dispute over costs |
| Communication | A safe channel between adults and a reasonable response time | Using the child as a messenger |
| Change | Reassessment upon a new school, illness, job or change of city | Continuing an outdated plan |
How are information sharing and communication made concrete?
The parenting plan may state through which channel important information from the school or a health institution will be passed to the other parent. Instead of making the child an intermediary for every notification, a regular method between the adults should be set up. Constant location sharing or unlimited phone monitoring, which lets one parent watch the other’s entire private life, is not the same as the need to obtain information about the child.
A method that may be suggested for the plan is to convey ordinary matters through a designated written channel, to report emergencies without delay, and to discuss important decisions after providing sufficient information. If a response time is to be agreed, the working pattern and the urgency of the decision should be taken into account. This period is not a statutory time limit for a lawsuit or an application. Instead of broad clauses under which failure to respond is treated as automatic consent, a safe path to follow when no answer is received should be set out.
The child’s phone or video calls with the other parent can also be scheduled to suit sleep and school routines. Recording every call, turning calls into interrogations, or asking the child to report the adults’ conversations at home may damage the relationship. A parent’s obtaining information about the child does not mean unlimited monitoring of the child’s private space in the other home. If there is a problem, its effect on the child should be made concrete and appropriate expert or judicial support should be considered.
How are duties divided in school and health decisions?
Choosing a school and following daily homework should not be subject to the same procedure. If a change of school is being considered, the educational need, travel time, fees and the child’s adjustment should be assessed together. How each parent will access teacher meetings and developmental information can be specified. The school’s own procedural requirements and the scope of the court decision are examined separately; a protocol is not assumed to be an instrument of authority that automatically binds all institutions.
In terms of health, planned significant interventions are distinguished from emergencies in which delay would be harmful. In an emergency, access to the necessary health service should not be delayed, and the other parent should be informed as soon as possible. Who will give consent for which procedure is assessed in light of the child’s condition, the power of representation, the text of the decision and health legislation. Broad clauses such as “if no reply is received, consent to any treatment is deemed given” are not safe.
How are holidays, travel and permanent relocation arranged?
In dividing holidays, the school calendar, overlapping religious holidays, who will provide transport and the method of notification in case of delay should be written down. A short trip and the permanent settlement of the child in another country are separate matters. The documents required for passports, visas and border procedures should also be checked independently of the custody decision.
A move that changes the child’s center of life may require reassessing the school and contact schedule. Joint custody does not give one parent unlimited authority to control the other’s life; nor does it allow the child’s place of residence to be changed unilaterally and irreversibly. If there is a dispute, it is important to clarify the legal position before the move.
How are maintenance and child expenses arranged in joint custody?
Joint custody does not remove the obligation to contribute to the child’s expenses. Under TMK Arts. 327–330, the child’s needs, the parents’ living conditions and their financial capacity are assessed. How care is actually shared, and who pays fixed expenses such as rent and school, also matter. Dividing all expenditures equally between parents with very different incomes is not always equitable. [1]
The plan should distinguish between regular monthly payments and private school, treatment, courses or extraordinary expenses. For special expenses, whether prior consultation is required, an emergency exception, the sharing of invoices and the payment date can be specified. Wording that ignores the child’s future changing needs or provides for a definitive waiver of any maintenance claim should not be used. The financial arrangement for the child is kept open to reassessment when circumstances change.
Which documents support the request?
The court should be given not merely a statement of good faith from the parents but a workable care plan. The child’s school program, health needs, transport between the homes, the parents’ working hours and the existing sharing of care are important. If a living environment was not seen in the social investigation report or the report has become outdated, a supplementary investigation may be requested by explaining the specific deficiency.
Correspondence between the parties must have been obtained lawfully. Breaking passwords to enter accounts, systematically recording the child’s private conversations, or sharing health information on social media does not count as preparing evidence. The records the court needs should be submitted while protecting confidentiality and limited to the dispute.
An arrangement within a divorce case and the later modification of a final custody decision are different procedural situations. The request to be made to the family court should be framed according to the existing decision and the changed circumstances. When a move to joint custody is sought, instead of merely listing the other side’s mistakes, it should be explained why the new arrangement is more suitable for the child.
What can be done if the joint custody plan does not work?
A single delay and continuous obstruction of decisions are not assessed in the same way. The subject, frequency and effect on the child of the problem should be set out in chronological order. For matters that can be resolved by a written consultation method or a change to the schedule, clarifying the arrangement may be helpful. Where an incident involves a safety risk, however, a protective application may be needed without waiting for these intermediate steps.
A problem with handover of the child or personal contact contrary to a court decision is addressed under the relevant provisions of Law No. 5395 (Child Protection Law) according to the scope of the enforceable decision. Generalizations such as “no route for delivery can be used where there is joint custody” or “every dispute directly results in disciplinary detention” are not correct. First, the concrete obligation established by the decision is examined. The need to modify the decision should be distinguished from the performance of the existing decision. [4]
Example: a decision process deadlocked over a change of school
Consider an arrangement in which the child lives mainly with one parent and the other takes part in school and health decisions. One parent wants to move the child to a distant school because of a job change, while the other wants to keep the current school. Simply saying “there is joint custody” does not produce an answer here. Travel time, the child’s achievement and adjustment, alternative school transport, care hours and cost must be assessed together.
If the dispute cannot be resolved, instead of hastily finalizing the new school enrollment, a judicial solution suited to the scope of the existing decision is considered. The child should not be questioned to determine which parent is right. The request submitted to the court should show, together with the history of the disagreement, the concrete difficulty the child will face in the near term. This example is hypothetical; it does not describe a firm’s case file.
Conclusion
The success of joint custody depends not on the name of the decision but on a workable parenting arrangement. If the place of residence, important decisions, time sharing and expenses are not clear, an agreement cannot protect the child from conflict. In preparing the request, the existing care arrangement and safety conditions should be examined, and a concrete plan suited to the child’s needs should be submitted to the court. If the plan does not work, documenting the problems and choosing the appropriate judicial route is a healthier starting point than unilateral changes in practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is writing joint custody into an uncontested divorce enough?
No. The judge examines whether the protocol is suitable for the child and considers any changes deemed necessary. Instead of a provision that leaves the living arrangement and the decision-making method unclear, a concrete plan should be prepared. The details are in the parenting plan section.
Is joint custody possible in different cities?
Living in different cities is not, on its own, an absolute obstacle. However, the school, transport, care and communication arrangements must be workable. The 2025 decision assessed the difference in cities together with a continuing dispute over residence.
If there is joint custody, is child maintenance not paid?
There is no such general rule. The child’s needs, the parents’ economic capacity and the actual sharing of care are taken into account. Joint custody does not remove the obligation to contribute to expenses.
If one parent does not want it, can joint custody never be established?
No single formula applies. Consent matters, but so do the real possibility of cooperation, the nature of the conflict and the child’s best interests. Where decisions are constantly deadlocked or there are incidents involving a safety risk, the suitability of joint custody should be questioned in particular.
Can a joint custody decision be changed later?
If there are new circumstances affecting the child’s best interests, a change to the arrangement may be requested. The request should show not merely a parent’s preference but the specific need for which the existing plan has proved inadequate.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Law No. 4721, the Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu); in particular Arts. 166, 182, 183, 323–324, 327–330, 335–340 and 346–348. Official legislation text.
2 — Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi), 20.02.2017, E.2016/15771, K.2017/1737. Full decision record (access may require a session).
3 — Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 27.03.2025, E.2024/5611, K.2025/3196. Full decision record (access may require a session).
4 — Law No. 5395, the Child Protection Law (Çocuk Koruma Kanunu), Art. 41/A–41/H. Official legislation text.