Custody and Personal Contact with the Child in Allegations of Violence and Neglect: Protective Measures and Safe Contact

How are violence and neglect assessed in terms of custody?

Direct and indirect effects on the child

The legal assessment is not limited to whether physical violence has been used against the child. Threats, psychological pressure, economic violence and the likelihood of being exposed to violence in the home also enter the assessment. A child's being affected by violence directed at another family member must be examined separately in terms of the child's own safety and development. Law No. 6284 covers persons affected directly or indirectly and the danger of violence. [2]

In an allegation of neglect, it must be made concrete which care need is not being met: Is the child being left without supervision appropriate to his or her age, is access to necessary health services being prevented, are education or nutrition needs being continually unmet? A single incident, depending on its gravity, may show serious risk; but not every parenting disagreement is serious neglect. The examination is directed at the effect of the conduct on the child and at whether protective support would be sufficient. [1][3]

The allegation, the need for protection and the final decision

For urgent protection it is not necessary to wait for a criminal conviction to become final. On the other hand, the fact that a protective order has been issued does not mean that the conditions for removal of custody have definitely been met. The urgency of the first intervention and the examination required for a permanent custody arrangement are distinct. Poverty, a health diagnosis or the fact of receiving treatment cannot by itself be equated with a parent's inadequacy; care capacity, concrete danger and the available support are assessed. [1][2][3]

What different needs do Law No. 6284, the TMK and Law No. 5395 meet?

The same event may call for more than one legal protection. Securing the child's safety, determining the custody arrangement between the parents and having the allegation of violence be the subject of a criminal investigation are separate processes. Submitting existing decisions together in applications helps prevent arrangements that are unaware of one another or hard to implement. [1][2][3]

The distinctions in the table are not an absolute wall between jurisdictions. For example, Art. 5(3) of Law No. 6284 gives the judge the power to decide, together with the measures in that Law, on child protection measures and on custody, guardian ad litem (kayyım), maintenance and personal contact under the TMK. [2]

Where should an application be made in an urgent danger?

If the child or the person caring for the child is under close and serious danger, help should be sought through the 112 Emergency Call Centre. Access to safety and to necessary medical care should not wait for the collection of documents or for a hearing date. The police, the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor's office are the authorities to which an allegation of violence or crime can be reported. ALO 183, the Violence Prevention and Monitoring Centre (ŞÖNİM), the Provincial Directorate of Family and Social Services and social service centres can provide support and referral. [7]

A measure under Law No. 6284 may be requested from the judge, the local civil authority or the law enforcement officers at the nearest and most easily accessible place; which authority can grant which measure depends on its statutory competence. For example, the order under Art. 5(1)(ç) for supervised contact in the existing personal contact arrangement, or for its removal, belongs to the judge. The law enforcement officers' power in cases where delay would be harmful does not cover the contact arrangement in that sub-paragraph. [2]

For a child in need of protection, an application under Law No. 5395 brings in the intervention of social service units and the protective or supportive measures of the juvenile judge. If there is a family court file on custody and personal contact, the file information should also be notified. [2][3]

What protective and contact measures can be requested under Law No. 6284?

The scope of contact must be set out clearly

Under Art. 5(1)(ç) of Law No. 6284, if a personal contact order has been made earlier, it may be decided that contact be carried out in the presence of an escort, be restricted or be removed altogether. Instead of merely saying "protect my child," the request should explain which form of contact gives rise to the danger. Which of options such as removing overnight stays, shortening contact or providing an escort would address the risk is assessed on the specific facts. [2]

An order that merely prohibits approaching the other parent or the shared residence is not the same as an order that directly restricts the child and personal contact. All provisions of the order must be examined with regard to the protected persons, exceptions, duration and contact. A prohibition that also covers the child cannot be ignored by relying on the old contact order; if there is uncertainty, a clear arrangement suited to the situation should be requested from the family court. [2][8]

Confidentiality and safe handover

In situations where disclosure of the address would create danger, confidentiality of identity and address information and a separate address for service are considered. If it is thought appropriate for contact to continue, hour and security arrangements preventing the parties from meeting may be made. Existing confidentiality and no-approach orders should be notified to the unit implementing the arrangement. Not revealing the confidential address during the organisation of contact is also part of the protection. [2][3][8]

Interim custody, change of custody and removal of custody

Regulating the child's care while the case is pending

In divorce or separation proceedings, TMK Art. 169 provides the basis for the judge to take, of his or her own motion, the interim measures necessary for the care and protection of the children. When an allegation of violence or neglect arises, where and with whom the child will be safe at that time is addressed together with the child's education and health needs. An interim arrangement is not an automatic forerunner of the final custody decision. [1]

The effect of changed circumstances on custody

Within the framework of TMK Arts. 182 and 183, the child's interests and new facts are important. Serious violence or neglect arising later in a care arrangement previously regarded as safe may call for a change of custody. The court's assessment must cover the safety of the care that the other parent can provide, as well as the conduct of the current parent. Custody must not be used as a means of punishing a parent. [1]

Stricter conditions for removal of custody

TMK Art. 346 regulates suitable protective measures, and Art. 347 the placement of the child with another family or in an institution if the conditions are met. For Art. 348, it must be apparent that the other measures have not produced results or will be inadequate in advance; statutory grounds such as the parent's failure to perform the duty properly, failure to show sufficient interest or serious neglect of obligations are examined. If custody is removed from both parents, a guardian is appointed for the child. [1]

Conclusions such as "if there is an allegation of violence, custody is definitely removed" or "if contact has been disrupted, custody changes immediately" are therefore not correct. Even the change of custody linked in TMK Art. 324 to non-compliance with the personal contact arrangement is subject to the condition that it not be contrary to the child's interests. The events on which the safety ground rests must also be investigated separately. [1][5]

How is safe contact made concrete?

Escort, place, duration and reassessment

TMK Art. 323 recognises the right to request personal contact, while Art. 324 makes it possible to refuse or remove the contact where the child's wellbeing is endangered, the right is abused or for other important reasons. If it is possible to maintain the relationship, the decision should determine in an understandable way where the contact will take place, for how long, in whose presence, and how any risk that arises will be reported. [1][2]

The presence of a specialist at the handover does not mean that the whole time the child spends with the parent will be supervised. Where the court decides on contact in the presence of a specialist or a teacher, this contact may take place at the handover location determined by the directorate. The risk assessment should be considered together with the identity of the escort and the adequacy of actual supervision. [8]

The child's views must be taken into account in a manner consistent with the child's age and maturity. The reason for refusing contact may be fear, a problem in the relationship, a specific incident or another factor. Without placing the whole responsibility for the decision on the child, the reason should be investigated, where necessary, through a social investigation and expert assessment. [1][3]

The European Court of Human Rights judgment in I.M. and Others v. Italy

In its judgment of 10 November 2022 in I.M. and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the failure in practice to conduct safely the contact that was supposed to be safe in a context of violence. The basic problems of the case were that, despite the experts' reports, the children were made to meet the father without appropriate protection, and that the mother's objection to these conditions was treated as non-cooperation without being sufficiently assessed. The Court held that the right to respect for family life had been violated in respect of the children and the mother. [5]

The judgment's contribution on this subject is to show that merely writing "protected" into a contact order is not sufficient: the authorities must assess the actual conditions and the danger that has been reported. An automatic conclusion for every Turkish custody file cannot be drawn from an event under Italian law; the assessment turns on the concrete risk and on whether the measures taken really work. [5]

For general handover applications and enforcement procedures, the article titled Handover of the Child and Enforcement of Personal Contact Orders may also be read.

Which documents and evidence are important in the application?

The facts and request sections of the application

In a functional application, the date and place of the event, who was present, how the child was affected and the danger that waiting would create are clearly described. The court, file number and scope of existing custody, personal contact and protection orders are stated. The requested measure is then made concrete: such as an urgent no-approach order, supervised contact, an interim care arrangement or social service support. Why the request is needed and how it would apply to the child's daily life should be explained together. [1][2][3]

Not every document will exist in every case. The records at hand and where they can be obtained can be shown separately:

• Police reports, application numbers and, if any, investigation file information.
• Health records connected with the event, examination documents and any existing expert assessments.
• Messages and correspondence whose date and context can be seen, and witnesses who directly observed the event.
• School records showing the child's education and care situation, social investigation reports and records on the implementation of earlier measures.

This list is not a precondition for an application. In particular, an urgent protection request should not be made conditional on gathering all the listed documents. [2][3]

The limits of evidence and hearing the child

The rule in Art. 8(3) of Law No. 6284 that no evidence or document is required is laid down for a protective measure; a preventive measure, on the other hand, must be granted without delay. This distinction must not be extended to mean that all custody allegations will be accepted as true without examination. On objection and in follow-up review, giving reasons based on the specific case becomes important. [2][6]

HMK Art. 199 regulates the status of electronic data as documents; Art. 189(2) prohibits taking into account evidence obtained unlawfully. Having a piece of correspondence in hand therefore does not mean that its source and how it was obtained are unimportant. When the child's statement is conveyed, content must not be created through leading questions; what the child said spontaneously and the adult's interpretation should be separated. In a need for protection, hearing the child's views where the child has sufficient capacity of discernment, and the possibility of a social investigation, are separately regulated in Art. 13 of Law No. 5395. [3][4]

Time limits, objection and monitoring of decisions

The duration of a Law No. 6284 order and objection to it

An initial measure under Law No. 6284 may be granted for six months at most. If it becomes apparent that violence or the danger of violence will continue, the period or the form of the measure may be changed; its continuation or removal may be ordered. A new attack is not necessarily awaited for an extension; the reasons for the continuing danger must be explained. [2]

An objection to the order may be made to the family court within two weeks of its pronouncement or notification. The authority that will examine an objection to a judge's order is determined in Art. 9(2) according to the number of courts and the assignment of judges. The objection authority decides within one week; the decision given on objection is final. The objection petition should explain which measure is inadequate, unnecessary or disproportionate, and why, and its effect on the child. [2]

The urgent process under the Child Protection Law

On the social service route in Art. 9(1)–(3) of Law No. 5395, after the child has been taken into care and supervision by the institution, the institution's period for applying to the juvenile judge is five days at most from the child's arrival at the institution. The judge decides within three days; this urgent protection order can be made for a period of thirty days at most. The subsequent social investigation serves to assess whether the child should return to the family or whether another measure is needed. These are not periods during which a parent must wait without asking for help. [3]

Paragraphs 4–6 of the same article, added in 2026, introduce a separate application scheme operating through an inpatient health institution in certain serious health dangers. The explanation of five days, three days and thirty days above does not express all the periods of this special health route. The implementation of general protective and supportive measures is also reviewed under Art. 8 at intervals of no more than three months. [3]

Litigation costs, fees and postal costs specified in the Law are not charged for an application under Law No. 6284 and the implementation of the order. This exemption does not mean that every separate custody action or private legal services are entirely free of charge; in other cases, legal aid is assessed separately if the conditions are met. [2][4]

Why are the current risk and reasoning important in prolonged measures?

In its Adnan Mutlu decision (12 June 2025, Application No. 2022/88206), the Constitutional Court (AYM) considered together a past incident of violence against the child, personal contact orders made later and the continuing Law No. 6284 measures. The majority held that, given a long-running measure being maintained solely on the basis of a past incident, the right to respect for family life had been violated because there was no relevant and sufficient reasoning addressing later developments and objections. The fact that an exception for personal contact was reserved in the order did not remove the review of reasons either. [6]

The decision was given by majority. The dissent did not join the majority, emphasising the verified violence against the child and the preservation of personal contact in the order. This division shows the importance of assessing, in a specific file, the need for safety and the maintenance of the relationship together. The Constitutional Court also stated that the finding of a violation does not mean that the dispute must necessarily be resolved in a particular direction. [6]

Developments showing that the risk continues, expert observations and implementation records should therefore be submitted to the file. An extension of a measure should not be automatic; nor should the absence of a new incident of violence be interpreted automatically as meaning that protection has become unnecessary. [2][6]

Representative example: a risk of violence arising on the day of contact

The following event is hypothetical; it is not an account of a real file. Suppose the child lives with the mother, weekend personal contact has been set up with the father, and there is a no-approach order in the mother's favour. Suppose threatening messages arrived before the contact and the child said he or she had been frightened at the previous contact.

First, it is examined whether the mother's no-approach order covers the child and the contact. If there is imminent danger, help is sought through 112; the messages and the incident reported by the child are notified to the relevant authorities. The family court is asked urgently to assess the existing personal contact in the light of this new risk and, if considered necessary, to order supervision, a time limit or removal. [1][2][7]

The other side may object, "I have a valid contact order." The existence of this order is important; but it does not make examination of the danger that has arisen unnecessary. On the other hand, the mere existence of a no-approach order in the mother's favour does not justify the assumption that custody or contact has automatically changed. The solution is to operate together the urgent intervention that secures safety and a judicial arrangement that can be implemented. The court order and the new measure are communicated to the unit implementing the arrangement. [1][2][3][8]

Conclusion

In an allegation of violence and neglect, the right legal approach is to secure the child's safety today while assessing the long-term care and relationship arrangement on concrete findings. Urgent protection, interim custody, restriction of personal contact and removal of custody rest on different conditions. The strength of an application comes not only from the gravity of the allegation but from describing the event clearly, showing the existing orders together, and linking the requested measure to the danger. The decision made for safe contact must be actually capable of implementation; and while a measure continues, the current risk, the child's views and the expert findings must be reassessed. [1][2][3][5][6]

Frequently Asked Questions

Does an allegation of violence automatically change custody?

No. The allegation may call for urgent protection; for a change of custody, the child's interests, care conditions and concrete danger are assessed. Removal of custody depends on the stricter conditions of TMK Art. 348. [1][2]

Can protection be requested if there is no medical report on the child's injuries?

Yes. Law No. 6284 does not cover only physical violence that has already occurred; the danger of violence is also important. For a protective measure no evidence or document is required; a preventive measure must also be granted without delay. The information at hand should be set out clearly in the application. [2]

Does a removal order in favour of the mother or father stop contact?

No such conclusion can be drawn on its own. Whether the order covers the child, whether it restricts personal contact, and its exceptions are examined. If contact is to continue, it should be carried out in accordance with the existing safety and confidentiality measures. [2][8]

If the child does not want to meet, is personal contact removed?

The child's views are important; but they do not by themselves produce an automatic result. Age, maturity and the reasons for not wanting contact are assessed. If there is an allegation of fear or violence, it must be investigated and appropriate protection provided. [1][3]

Is supervised contact the same as going to a child handover centre?

No. Handover taking place at a centre does not show that the entire contact period will be supervised. By whom, where and for how long an escort will be provided must be determined according to the scope of the court order. [2][8]

Can interim custody be regulated before the criminal case ends?

In divorce or separation proceedings, interim measures for the child's care and protection can be taken under TMK Art. 169. Finalisation of a criminal conviction is not a general precondition for securing protection. [1][2]

How many days is the objection period for a Law No. 6284 order?

The Law sets the period not in days but as two weeks from pronouncement or notification. The objection authority decides within one week. The starting date and the notification of the order should be checked in the specific file. [2]

If I apply to social services, will my child necessarily be taken into institutional care?

No. Law No. 5395 aims primarily at protecting the child in his or her own family environment. Options such as counselling, education and health support are considered; a care measure is decided according to the child's concrete need for protection. [3]

What can be done if the risk continues when the measure's period ends?

A request for continuation or change can be submitted, stating the reasons the risk continues and the new information. It is useful to apply before the period ends so that no gap in protection arises. An extension is not necessarily dependent on a new attack. [2]

Sources

1 — Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, in particular Arts. 169, 182–183, 323–324, 339, 346–348. Legislation Information System — current text of the law.

2 — Law No. 6284 on the Protection of the Family and Prevention of Violence against Women, in particular Arts. 1–5, 7–10, 20. Legislation Information System — text of the law.

3 — Child Protection Law No. 5395, in particular Arts. 4–9, 13 and 41/C-11; including the 2026 amendments to Art. 9. Legislation Information System — current text of the law.

4 — Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Arts. 189/2, 199 and 334. Legislation Information System — current text of the law.

5 — ECtHR, I.M. et autres c. Italie (I.M. and Others v. Italy), Application No. 25426/20, 10.11.2022; final 10.02.2023; in particular §§104–141. HUDOC — case record; official full text.

6 — Constitutional Court, Adnan Mutlu, Application No. 2022/88206, 12.06.2025; Official Gazette: 02.12.2025, No. 33095; in particular §§19–25, 29 and the dissenting opinion. Constitutional Court — case record; PDF copy of the decision in the Official Gazette.

7 — Ministry of Family and Social Services, application and support channels when exposed to violence. Official information.

8 — Child Handover Guide (Çocuk Teslimi Rehberi) published on the website of the Ministry of Justice Directorate General for Judicial Support and Victim Services, relevant explanations of practice: pp. 20–21, 35, 62–63, 69. Guide PDF. The Guide is an explanatory source on practice.