The route to follow for using a foreign court’s custody judgment in Türkiye depends on the country in which and the date on which the judgment was rendered, the international convention to be applied and the result sought in Türkiye. For judgments within the scope of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, recognition by operation of law is the rule; a separate declaration of enforceability is required for compulsory execution. For files outside this regime, other international agreements and the recognition and enforcement (tenfiz) provisions of Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) are assessed. [1] [2]
For this reason, merely having a translation made or entering the divorce in the population records does not meet every need arising from a foreign custody judgment. Acceptance of who will represent the child, handover of the child, application of the schedule of personal contact and a change of custody are different requests. Framing the application correctly requires first separating these requests from one another.
What do recognition and enforcement mean for a foreign custody judgment?
For the registration of a divorce judgment rendered abroad, see our article on recognition and enforcement in Türkiye of a divorce granted abroad; for a custody action in Türkiye where the child lives abroad, see our article on a custody action in Türkiye if the child lives abroad.
Recognition: acceptance of the legal effect of the judgment
Recognition means accepting that a foreign judgment produces legal consequences in Türkiye. Under Law No. 5718, acceptance of the res judicata or conclusive-evidence effect of a foreign judgment depends on the court’s determination that the conditions in the Law are met. The 1996 Hague Convention, however, provides a different method for child protection measures within its scope: recognition takes place, as a rule, by operation of law, without a separate action being filed. This difference prevents the same list of procedures from being applied to every foreign custody judgment. [1, Art. 58–59] [2, Art. 23–24]
For example, showing before an institution the authority to represent the child is not the same as compelling the other parent to hand over the child. In the first case, the recognition regime of the judgment and the scope of the authority to represent are examined. In the second, the judgment must be made enforceable in Türkiye and an appropriate handover procedure must then be put into operation. The document and permission requirements of school, health or passport procedures also apply separately.
Enforcement: carrying out an enforceable provision in Türkiye
Enforcement makes it possible to apply in Türkiye those provisions of a foreign judgment that require execution. For this, the obligation in the operative part must be clear. A judgment that only states who holds custody and a judgment containing an order to meet on specified dates, to hand over the child or to refrain from specified conduct are assessed separately. A form of handover that is not in the judgment, or a new schedule of personal contact, cannot be added of its own accord in an enforcement review. [1, Art. 50–56] [2, Art. 26–28]
| Result sought in Türkiye | Route to consider first | Distinction to keep in mind |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptance of custody or of the authority to represent | If applicable, Article 23 of the 1996 Hague Convention; where necessary, a decision under Article 24 | Recognition by operation of law does not mean that every institutional procedure can be carried out without documents. |
| Handover of the child or implementation of a provision on personal contact | If applicable, Article 26 of the 1996 Hague Convention; in other cases, the relevant enforcement regime | Recognition alone does not give authority for compulsory execution. |
| Change of custody under changed circumstances | A new protection or custody request before the authority with international jurisdiction | Enforcement is not a rehearing of the custody dispute from the beginning. |
| Return of a child wrongfully removed or retained | The 1980 Hague return mechanism, if its conditions are met | A return order does not conclusively determine the merits of custody. |
Which law applies first: the Hague Convention or Law No. 5718?
The country, date and scope of the judgment are examined together
Article 1/2 of Law No. 5718 reserves the international conventions to which Türkiye is a party. The examination therefore should not start directly from the general conditions of the Law. First, the subject of the judgment, the age of the child, the basis of jurisdiction of the authority that rendered it and the convention relationship between the states are determined. A state’s having merely signed a convention is not enough for the convention to apply between that state and Türkiye. The date of entry into force, objections to accession, territorial application and the relevant declarations must be checked. [1] [2] [3]
The 1996 Hague Convention entered into force for Türkiye on February 1, 2017. It cannot be said, however, that all earlier foreign judgments automatically fall under the same regime after that date. Under the temporal application rule in Article 53 of the Convention, the entry-into-force relationship between the state where the judgment was rendered and the requested state, and the date of the measure, are compared for recognition and enforcement. [2, Art. 53] [3]
Scope of the 1996 Hague Convention
The Convention applies to children from birth until they reach the age of 18. Custody, the authority to determine the child’s place of residence, personal contact and various protection measures are within its scope. Matters such as maintenance, adoption and the establishment of parentage are excluded. The presence of both custody and maintenance in the same foreign divorce judgment does not mean that these two provisions will necessarily be examined under the same convention. [2, Art. 2–4]
The words “custody,” “parental responsibility” or “guardianship” in a foreign judgment likewise should not be translated in a single uniform way without seeing their content. A custody arrangement between parents and the appointment of a guardian may be different legal institutions. This distinction affects the court with subject-matter jurisdiction and the legal result to be sought.
The 1980 Luxembourg Convention and other agreements
The 1980 Luxembourg European Convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children and on the restoration of custody of children should also be researched in suitable files. This instrument is different from the Hague Child Abduction Convention adopted in the same year. The Luxembourg Convention’s definition of a child, its relationship between Contracting States and its special grounds for refusal are checked separately; the 18-year age limit of the 1996 Hague Convention cannot be carried over to it. When more than one agreement comes into question, the provisions on their relationship are read together. [4] [2, Art. 52]
Is a judgment recognized automatically under the 1996 Hague Convention?
Recognition by operation of law and obtaining clarity from the court
Article 23 of the Convention provides that a protection measure taken by the authority of one Contracting State is recognized by operation of law in the other Contracting States. Even so, the existence, scope and currency of the judgment must be shown. The need to submit a document and the need to file a separate recognition action are different from each other. [2]
If there is a dispute over recognition, or if there is an interest in removing legal uncertainty, a decision on the recognition or non-recognition of the judgment may be requested under Article 24. For example, while the lawful relocation of the child to Türkiye is being planned, it may be necessary to clarify whether the personal contact arrangement will be accepted. In legal doctrine as well, it is explained that this route serves to give the person concerned legal certainty in advance despite recognition by operation of law. [2] [9, pp. 984–986]
Compulsory execution of a recognized judgment is a separate stage
If the other parent does not comply voluntarily and an implementation measure is needed in Türkiye, Article 26 comes into play. The judgment must be enforceable in the state where it was rendered; in Türkiye too, enforceability is established at the request of the person concerned. The Convention requires a simple and rapid procedure, but it does not guarantee a result within a fixed number of days or direct handover of the child. [2]
At this stage, not all the substantive conditions of Law No. 5718 can be added to the Convention. In particular, a general reciprocity condition cannot be created in addition for enforcement within the scope of the Convention. The grounds for refusal are assessed within the framework stated in Article 23/2 of the Convention; the regulation of procedure by domestic law does not change the international regime to be applied. [2, Art. 26/2–3]
An application for the return of a child is addressed separately in our article on international child abduction and return of the child.
How are a temporary custody order and the finality requirement assessed?
The conditions of Law No. 5718 and of the Convention should not be confused
Article 50 of Law No. 5718 requires that a judgment of a foreign court be final under the law of the country in which it was rendered. The 1996 Hague Convention, by contrast, does not establish the same general finality requirement for protection measures; for enforcement, what is decisive is that the measure be enforceable in the State of origin. For this reason, it is not correct to exclude a temporary custody order from the outset merely because it bears the heading “measure.” [1] [2]
However, it cannot be concluded either that every temporary order can be applied in Türkiye. The authority under which the measure was taken, whether it remains in force, whether it has been lifted by a later decision and its territorial effect are examined. In particular, provisional measures of limited territorial effect under Article 12 of the Convention cannot be treated as identical to other protection measures. Current records showing that the judgment is still valid and, where necessary, enforceable should be attached to the application. [2, Art. 11–14, 26]
What does the Court of Cassation’s decision of March 25, 2024 show?
In its decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) dated March 25, 2024, E. 2023/8407, K. 2024/2047, the effect in Türkiye of a temporary custody arrangement rendered in Germany during divorce proceedings was discussed. The court of first instance, relying on recognition by operation of law under the Convention, held that there was no need to rule on custody; the regional court of appeal, however, assessed the legal interest in the specific file and ordered enforcement of the custody provision. The Court of Cassation affirmed this decision. [8]
The decision shows that temporary custody arrangements must be examined separately within the framework of the Convention. At the same time, the reasoning of the regional court of appeal also contains a finding on the finality of the foreign measure. It therefore cannot be concluded from this single decision that all non-final measures will be enforced in every circumstance. The practical value of the case law lies in assessing together the legal interest, the effect of the measure and the regime to be applied, rather than proceeding from the heading of the judgment. [8]
What are the conditions for recognition and enforcement under Law No. 5718?
Where there is no applicable special convention, Articles 50–59 of Law No. 5718 form the basic framework. There must be a judgment rendered by a foreign court in a civil case and final under its own law. The person requesting enforcement must explain the legal interest and which provision is sought to be enforced. [1]
Reciprocity is required only for enforcement under the general regime
Under Article 54/1-a, reciprocity based on an agreement, a statute or de facto practice between Türkiye and the state where the judgment was rendered is examined. By contrast, Article 58 expressly states that this condition does not apply to recognition. To treat a file in which only recognition is sought as having failed on the ground that “there is no enforcement agreement between the two countries” overlooks this distinction. [1]
In enforcement too, the mere absence of an agreement does not necessarily mean the absence of reciprocity; the possibility of statutory or de facto reciprocity should be investigated. In federal states, the jurisdiction in which the judgment was issued and the relevant practice may gain importance. A current review suited to the file should be made instead of general lists of countries.
Jurisdiction, public policy and the right of defense
The judgment must not have been rendered on a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts. At the defendant’s objection, it is also assessed whether the court of a state that has no genuine connection with the dispute or the parties assumed jurisdiction. The child’s being a Turkish citizen or being present in Türkiye cannot automatically be put forward as a ground for refusal in place of these conditions. [1, Art. 54/1-b]
Manifest violation of public policy, as well as objections of not having been duly summoned, not having been represented or having been tried in absence contrary to law, are examined separately. Deficiencies in the right of defense under Article 54/1-(ç) of Law No. 5718 matter within the framework of the other party’s objection on those grounds. Not having attended the hearing does not by itself mean defective notification or a violation of the right of defense; it is investigated whether the opportunity to attend and to defend was provided. [1]
On what grounds can a recognition or enforcement request be refused?
The limited grounds for refusal in the 1996 Hague Convention
When refusal is assessed within the scope of the Convention, the following grounds must be applied with their own conditions:
- The jurisdiction of the authority that rendered the judgment not being based on the principles in Chapter II of the Convention.
- Except in cases of urgency, the child not having been given the opportunity to be heard, where this is contrary to fundamental principles of procedure of the requested state.
- At the request of a person claiming that the measure infringes his or her parental responsibility, that person not having been given the opportunity to be heard, except in cases of urgency.
- A manifest violation of public policy, taking into account also the best interests of the child.
- Incompatibility with a later measure taken in a non-Contracting State of the child’s habitual residence that fulfills the conditions for recognition.
- In cross-border placements, the consultation and approval procedure of Article 33 not having been complied with. [2, Art. 23/2]
This list should not be read to mean that every later decision automatically deprives the earlier decision of effect. The dates of the decisions, their subject scope, their bases of jurisdiction and their relationship with each other must be shown concretely. The binding effect of Article 25 with regard to findings of fact on which jurisdiction is based is also taken into account.
The child’s best interests do not authorize a review of the merits
Under Article 27 of the Convention, the merits of a foreign judgment cannot be re-examined beyond the limited review. A general claim such as “the other parent was less involved” does not by itself start a new custody proceeding. By contrast, facts such as concrete violence or a serious security risk should be presented by connecting them to the relevant ground for refusal or to a request for urgent protection. [2]
With regard to joint custody as well, the fact that the arrangement differs from a practice in Turkish law does not by itself conclude the assessment. The public policy review is carried out on the basis of the concrete effects of the judgment and the protection of the child. The Convention contains no separate, automatic ground for refusal under the name “joint custody.” As to the hearing of the child, the Convention does not contain a fixed “12-year” threshold applied to all files; the right to be heard, maturity and the relevant procedural principles are addressed together. [2, Art. 23, 27]
Which court has subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction?
The subject-matter jurisdiction of the family court in custody judgments
The family court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody judgments concerning family law. In places where there is no family court, the civil court of first instance designated for that purpose hears the case in the capacity of a family court. This result follows from reading together the general provision on subject-matter jurisdiction in Law No. 5718 and the special provision on subject-matter jurisdiction in Law No. 4787. If the foreign judgment actually concerns guardianship (vesayet), the same result on jurisdiction should not be applied automatically. [1, Art. 51, 64/2] [5, Art. 2, 4]
In which place is the action filed?
Under Article 51 of Law No. 5718, the action is filed at the place of residence in Türkiye of the person against whom enforcement is sought; if there is none, at the place where that person lives. If neither exists, one of the courts of Ankara, İstanbul or İzmir may be chosen. The city where the child is located in Türkiye or the office address of the applicant’s attorney does not by itself take the place of this order. [1]
In court applications within the scope of the Convention as well, the subject-matter jurisdiction and the domestic procedural rules to be applied must be determined. The territorial jurisdiction of the recognition or enforcement court and the authority with international jurisdiction to change the merits of custody are not the same matter. The special rules for urgent protection and child return applications are examined separately.
What documents are required for a foreign custody judgment?
The document list is prepared according to the nature of the judgment
Article 53 of Law No. 5718 provides for the duly certified original or certified copy of the foreign judgment and its certified translation, as well as a document showing finality and its certified translation. In requests within the scope of the Convention, validity and enforceability records appropriate to the nature of the judgment are assessed. A photograph of the last page alone is often not enough to assess the reasoning, scope and additional provisions of the judgment. [1] [2]
| Document or information | What it shows | Check before applying |
|---|---|---|
| The whole judgment and its certified copy | The authority, the parties, the reasoning and the operative provision | Are there additional decisions, corrections and later amendments? |
| Record of finality or enforceability | The legal effect sought by the relevant regime | Does the document relate to the custody provision or only to the divorce? |
| Turkish translation and the necessary certifications | Correct understanding of the content | Are names, dates, addresses and legal terms consistent? |
| Records of notification and of the hearing | The opportunity to defend and to take part | Are the summons, representation, delivery document and minutes consistent with each other? |
| Records on the child’s living arrangements | Where necessary, habitual residence and the need for protection | Are the school, care and health records relevant to the claim? |
| Identity, address and representation documents | The parties, the place of notification and the authority of the attorney | Are the current address, any change of surname and the scope of the power of attorney clear? |
A list of evidence does not mean re-collecting all the private-life documents of a custody case. The connection of the submitted document with the ground for refusal, jurisdiction, the current measure or the provision to be applied should be explained. The child’s health and identity data should be shared only to the necessary extent and through the appropriate legal procedure.
Is an apostille mandatory in every file?
No. Article 43 of the 1996 Hague Convention exempts documents transmitted or delivered under the Convention from certification and similar formalities. Exemptions arising from other conventions may also exist. For this reason, it cannot be said that an apostille will be required without exception in all foreign custody files. It should be checked which document is submitted under which application regime. [2]
In files without an exemption, an apostille or other certification procedures may come into question, depending on the procedure in which the document will be used and the agreements between states. An apostille is not a document of finality; it does not make the content of the judgment correct or in the child’s interest. Translation, certification, finality and enforceability should not be used in place of one another. The separate document requirements in Law No. 5718 also reflect this distinction. [1, Art. 53]
How is the application prepared and how does the proceeding progress?
The result sought must be stated clearly in the petition
First, the date, file number, authority and the operative provision on custody of the foreign judgment are determined. Then the convention or statute to be applied, the applicant’s legal interest, the other party and the jurisdictional connection are explained. If only a specific part of the judgment is sought to be applied, that part is clearly indicated. Law No. 5718 allows enforcement to be ordered in part or in full. [1, Art. 52, 56]
For example, if the divorce has already been entered in the records in Türkiye, a request to have the divorce recognized again should not be added automatically merely to have the custody provision applied. By contrast, if the custody provision is contained in a separate foreign judgment, submitting only the divorce judgment may not be sufficient. This consistency between the request and the document reduces unnecessary dispute.
Notification, defense and legal remedy
Under Article 55 of Law No. 5718, the application is examined under the simplified trial procedure; the petition and the hearing date are notified to the other party. The exception in the Law for non-contentious jurisdiction without an opposing party is reserved. In notification abroad, the current address and the relevant international procedure matter. Notification in the foreign proceeding and notification of the recognition or enforcement action in Türkiye are two separate stages. [1]
The other party must substantiate the grounds for refusal of the regime applied and the relevant procedural objections. Under the regime of Law No. 5718, it may also be asserted that the provision has been carried out or that a cause preventing its carrying out has arisen. Before moving directly to implementation after a decision granting the request, the legal remedy and the state of enforcement are checked; Article 57/2 of Law No. 5718 provides that an appeal to the Court of Cassation (temyiz) stays implementation. The time limits should be calculated specifically for the file on the basis of notification and the avenue of application. [1]
How long does the action take; are costs and security required?
There is no fixed completion time that applies to every foreign custody file. Obtaining documents from the foreign authority, translation, international notification, the scope of the objections and the legal remedy process affect the total duration. The obligation of a rapid procedure under the 1996 Hague Convention does not mean that all files will be concluded in a single hearing. [2, Art. 26]
| Stage affecting the process | Problem that may cause delay | Step that can be taken in preparation |
|---|---|---|
| Obtaining foreign documents | Missing provision or incorrect finality record | Requesting the complete document, specifying the custody part sought |
| Translation and certification | Inconsistency in legal terms, names or dates | Comparing the judgment, annexes and identity records together |
| Notification | Outdated or incomplete address abroad | Verifying the country, postal code and delivery details |
| Court and legal remedy | Dispute over the regime, jurisdiction or grounds for refusal | Linking each claim to the relevant provision and document |
Court costs, notification and translation expenses and attorney fees are separate items. In actions filed by foreign natural or legal persons, the security for costs provision in Article 48 of Law No. 5718 and exemptions arising from reciprocity or agreements are assessed. Security is not a payment of the same amount that applies in every case, without exception, merely because a person is a foreigner. [1]
The cost regime at the stage of handing over the child is separate: Article 41/H of Law No. 5395 exempts the relevant implementation procedures from fees and provides that expenses other than attorney fees are covered from the Ministry’s budget. This provision cannot be extended to mean that all the costs of the recognition and enforcement proceeding are free of charge. [6]
How is the child handed over once the judgment is accepted?
For provisions on handover of the child and personal contact made applicable in Türkiye, the current system is run through the Directorates of Judicial Support and Victim Services (adli destek ve mağdur hizmetleri müdürlükleri). Article 41/A and the following articles of Law No. 5395 provide for an implementation procedure based on the child’s best interests, in which experts take part. In places where there is no directorate, the registry of the civil court designated by the Ministry acts. [6]
The rights holder applies to the competent unit with the applicable judgment and the necessary documents. If the obligation to hand over the child is not performed voluntarily, the procedure of notice and handover order in the Law is followed. In a judgment on personal contact, it matters for implementation that the day, time, place, accompaniment and other conditions are clear. The competence of the directorate at the child’s place of residence is separate from the rule on which court the recognition or enforcement action is filed in. [6, Art. 41/A–41/C]
The existence of a foreign judgment does not give a parent the authority to take the child by force on his or her own initiative. In practice, if a dispute, a security risk or a violation of the judgment arises, the relevant applications and protective remedies should be used. In particular, a new act of removal across borders may create another legal dispute.
Does the population registration of the divorce also cover the custody judgment?
Administrative registration of a foreign divorce in the family register produces consequences with regard to marital status. Article 9/5 of the relevant Regulation expressly provides that the commission’s decision does not produce consequences with regard to custody, child maintenance, personal contact with the child and other provisions subject to enforcement. Therefore, appearing as “divorced” in the population records does not mean that the custody provision is enforceable in Türkiye. [7]
At the same time, the limited effect of administrative registration does not remove the independent rule of recognition by operation of law of the 1996 Hague Convention. The custody provision is examined separately within its own regime. Even if the foreign divorce judgment contains no provision on custody, the enforcement court does not supplement a provision that does not exist; if necessary, a new custody arrangement is requested before the competent authority.
If the child has come to Türkiye, does custody change; is a return action needed?
Habitual residence, urgent protection and change of custody
The child’s coming to Türkiye does not by itself invalidate the foreign custody judgment. Under the 1996 Hague Convention, the basic jurisdictional connection is the child’s habitual residence. This concept is not the same as citizenship or the address in the population records; the child’s actual center of life is assessed. In the case of wrongful removal or retention, Article 7 preserves the jurisdiction of the authorities of the former habitual residence under special conditions. [2]
If, after the judgment, the care arrangements, security or health conditions have changed materially, a change of custody or a request for a new protection measure may come into question. First, the authority of which state may examine this request must be determined. Measures within the scope of Article 14 of the Convention may continue to have effect under their own conditions until they are modified, lifted or terminated by the competent authority. In urgent cases, the authorities of the Contracting State where the child is present may provide the necessary protection within the framework of Article 11. [2]
Return under the 1980 Hague Convention and enforcement of a custody judgment are different
Where a child is wrongfully removed to another country or retained there, an application for return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention may be considered. This mechanism was not established to determine in advance who will exercise custody better. A return order is not regarded as a decision on the merits of custody; for a return application, it is not required in every case that the foreign custody judgment first be enforced in Türkiye. [10, Art. 14, 19]
The existence of a custody judgment in Türkiye, or its being recognizable, is likewise not by itself a ground for refusing return. Even if return, recognition, enforcement and urgent protection requests arise within the same family, the subject and legal result of each must be explained. The 16-year age limit of the 1980 Hague Convention and the 18-year age limit of the 1996 Convention should also not be confused with each other. [10, Art. 4, 17] [2, Art. 2]
Conclusion
In using a foreign custody judgment effectively in Türkiye, the first step is to determine correctly the international regime to be applied and the result sought. Recognition by operation of law, obtaining a court decision of recognition, enforcement and handover of the child are not the same stage. A standard petition prepared without checking the country and date, or an apostille list applied to every file, may fail to address these distinctions.
The whole judgment, the records of validity and enforceability, the documents on hearing and notification, and later measures should be examined together. The child’s best interests are taken into account both in the limited review of recognition and in the protection and handover procedure to be applied. For general custody disputes and representation options, the page on custody attorney services may also be consulted. The route to be followed in a specific file is determined on the basis of the foreign judgment and current conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a custody judgment obtained in Germany valid in Türkiye?
It may be. First, the date and nature of the judgment and the conditions for applying the 1996 Hague Convention are examined. Germany’s and Türkiye’s both being parties does not by itself lead all files to the same result. Judgments within scope may be recognized by operation of law; enforceability is separately required for compulsory execution. [2] [3]
Is it always necessary to file an action for a foreign custody judgment?
With regard to recognition by operation of law within the scope of the 1996 Hague Convention, a separate action is not required in every case. If there is legal uncertainty about recognition, a decision may be requested under Article 24. A request for compulsory execution is assessed separately within the framework of Article 26. [2]
Are an apostille and a finality notation the same document?
No. A certification procedure does not take the place of the document showing that the judgment has become final. In addition, some documents within the scope of the Convention are exempt from certification. The need for documents is determined according to the regime to be applied. [1, Art. 53] [2, Art. 43]
Can a temporary custody order be applied in Türkiye?
It depends on the regime to which the judgment is subject, its basis of jurisdiction, its currency and its enforceability. Protection measures may be examined under the 1996 Hague Convention; the general finality requirement of Law No. 5718 cannot be carried over unchanged to all convention files. [1] [2]
If the other parent does not accept the action, can the application not be made?
The consent of the other party is not a mandatory condition of recognition or enforcement for all files. Notification is made duly; the defenses raised are examined within the framework of the grounds for refusal of the regime applied. [1] [2]
Is a joint custody judgment automatically refused?
The Convention contains no independent, automatic ground for refusal for joint custody. A concrete assessment is made with regard to jurisdiction, the right to be heard, public policy and the child’s best interests. [2, Art. 23, 27]
I had the divorce registered at the consulate; is that also sufficient for custody?
Administrative registration of a divorce does not produce the result of enforcement of the provisions on custody and personal contact. These provisions are assessed separately under the relevant convention or statute. [7]
If the child lives in Türkiye, is the action filed in the city where the child is located?
In recognition and enforcement, the territorial jurisdiction of the court is determined within the framework of Article 51 of Law No. 5718. The competence of the directorate that will carry out the handover of the child and applications for urgent protection are subject to different rules. [1] [6]
Is it possible to pursue the matter through an attorney from abroad?
With a suitably broad power of attorney, the action and document procedures can be conducted through an attorney. The conditions for issuing and certifying the document of representation are checked separately. Because the court may request a personal hearing or another procedural act, it cannot be promised that no attendance at all will be required.
Once an enforcement decision is obtained, is the child handed over directly?
First, the enforceability of the judgment and the state of the legal remedy are checked. If voluntary handover does not take place, the competent directorate and the implementation procedure in Law No. 5395 are followed for handover of the child or personal contact. [1] [6]
Can custody be granted to me again in a recognition action?
Recognition and enforcement are not used to rehear the foreign custody action from the beginning. If a new custody arrangement is sought because of changed circumstances, it must be put forward by an appropriate request before the authority with international jurisdiction. [2, Art. 5–14, 27]
If the child has been abducted, is it necessary to wait for the outcome of enforcement?
If the conditions of the 1980 Hague Convention are met, the return mechanism may be assessed separately. There is no requirement to obtain an enforcement decision in advance for return; return and the enforcement of a custody judgment are different legal routes. [10]
Sources and legal bases
[1] Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law, in particular Art. 1/2, 48, 50–59 and 64/2. Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi), current text.
[2] Hague Child Protection Convention of October 19, 1996, in particular Art. 2–5, 7, 11–14, 23–28, 33, 43, 52–54. HCCH, text of the Convention; Ministry of Justice, Turkish text.
[3] HCCH, status and entry-into-force table of the 1996 Convention; Türkiye’s declarations and reservations. Status table; Türkiye’s declarations and reservations. Accessed: October 11, 2026.
[4] Council of Europe, European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children, Luxembourg, May 20, 1980, ETS No. 105; in particular Art. 1, 7–10, 19–20. Text of the Convention; information on parties.
[5] Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Rules of Procedure of Family Courts, Art. 2 and 4. Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi), current text.
[6] Law No. 5395 on Child Protection, Art. 41/A–41/(İ); in particular handover of the child, personal contact and costs. Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi), current text.
[7] Regulation on the Registration in the Population Register of Judgments Rendered by Judicial or Administrative Authorities of Foreign Countries, Art. 9/5. General Directorate of Population and Citizenship Affairs, text.
[8] 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi), March 25, 2024, E. 2023/8407, K. 2024/2047. Text of the decision, Son Karar archive. Transcription from a secondary case-law archive; access may require a login.
[9] Ulusu Karataş, Ayşe Elif (2017). “The 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation with Respect to 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”). Public and Private International Law Bulletin (Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni), 37(2), 911–1003; in particular pp. 979–988. Publication record; full text.
[10] Hague Convention of October 25, 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, in particular Art. 3–4, 14, 16–19. HCCH, text of the Convention.