Sophos Hukuk Bürosu

Guide to Personal Contact with a Child Living in Another City or Country

Yazar: Yayın: Son güncelleme:

Although divorce legally ends the marital union between the spouses, it does not extinguish the parentage and the parental relationship between the mother, the father and their common child. Accordingly, even where custody is awarded to one of the spouses after divorce, the right of the non-custodial parent to establish and maintain personal contact (visitation) with the child is guaranteed by law. Personal contact aims to ensure that the child regularly meets and communicates with the parent living apart, spends quality time with them and maintains the emotional bond in a healthy way.

Where the parents continue to live in the same city after divorce, it is relatively easy to set a schedule for personal contact. By contrast, as is frequently seen in divorce and family law proceedings in Alanya, Gazipaşa, Mahmutlar, Oba, Konaklı and the wider Antalya region, where tourism and the resident foreign population are significant, classic weekend visits become practically impossible once one of the parents moves to another city or abroad. Geographical distance brings with it multi-dimensional legal risks: the child being exposed to exhausting journeys, the covering of school and education costs (child support and education expenses) and disruption of the child’s schooling, high travel and accommodation costs, passport and visa procedures, the enforcement of child handovers, and the risk of the child being abducted abroad and not returned.

In this comprehensive legal guide, the principles of personal contact with the child for divorced parents living in different cities and countries, enforceable parenting protocols and available remedies are examined in all their aspects in the light of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK), the Child Protection Law No. 5395, the 1980 Hague Convention, and precedent decisions of the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal.

📑 Table of Contents

1. Legal Basis and Fundamental Principles of Personal Contact

1.1. Provisions of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK Arts. 182 and 323)

Under Article 323 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK), each of the mother and the father has the right to request that appropriate personal contact be established with a child who is not under their custody or has not been entrusted to them. Article 182 of the Code, in turn, imposes on the family court judge the duty, when granting a divorce or separation, to arrange ex officio the personal contact between the child and the party not awarded custody.

Three fundamental principles emerge from these statutory provisions:

Establishing personal contact does not grant custodial powers over the child to the party who does not have custody. However, the custodial parent may not arbitrarily hinder or prevent the other parent’s meetings with the child either.

1.2. Mutual Obligations of the Parents and the Warning of Change of Custody

Article 324 TMK expressly provides that the mother and the father are obliged to refrain from harming each other’s personal relationship with the child, from instilling in the child feelings of hatred and alienation towards the other parent, and from making the child’s education and upbringing more difficult.

Law No. 7343 Amending the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and Certain Other Laws added a critical provision to Articles 182 and 324 TMK: where the custodial parent fails to comply with the requirements of the personal contact order (by not allowing the meetings, hiding the child to avoid handover, or creating persistent obstacles), it is accepted that custody may be changed, provided this is not contrary to the child’s interests. This statutory warning must be expressly stated in family court judgments.

1.3. International Law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the Republic of Türkiye, provides that “the best interests of the child” shall be a primary consideration in all administrative and judicial proceedings concerning children. Article 9 of the Convention guarantees that the child shall not be separated from their parents and shall maintain regular direct contact with them, while Article 10 guarantees the facilitation of cross-border contact between a child and a parent living in different countries.

2. Criteria Applied in Arranging Personal Contact

2.1. The Principle of the Best Interests of the Child

When family courts issue personal contact orders, the dynamics of each specific case are assessed individually. The main criteria taken into account by the judge and specialist pedagogues are as follows:

2.2. Hearing the Child’s Views and the Age of Discernment

It is a legal requirement that children who have reached sufficient capacity of discernment (generally aged 8 and over) be heard, with the assistance of specialist pedagogues and psychologists, in personal contact proceedings that directly concern them. In the judgment of the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation dated 17.10.2012, E. 2012/2-401, K. 2012/723, the necessity of obtaining the views of a child of the age of discernment was emphasised.

However, the child’s statement alone is not absolutely decisive. The court investigates in depth, by means of a social investigation report (SİR), the reason underlying the child’s unwillingness to meet the parent (whether it is genuine neglect/violence, suggestion by the other parent and parental alienation, or a loyalty conflict on the part of the child).

2.3. Establishing Personal Contact Gradually

Where there has been an actual or emotional separation between parent and child for many years, a gradual personal contact model may be applied instead of a long-term schedule that immediately includes overnight stays or taking the child to another city or abroad. For example: first, daytime meetings of a few hours at a child handover centre accompanied by a specialist; then weekend meetings without overnight stays; at a later stage, meetings with overnight stays; and finally, a model of longer visits during holidays.

Nevertheless, in the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal dated 10.05.2017, E. 2017/502, K. 2017/594, it was held that the fact that a parent has not previously seen or been in contact with the child does not, on its own and in the absence of concrete evidence of danger or abuse, make it mandatory for personal contact to be established gradually and in the presence of a specialist.

3. Personal Contact Where the Parents Live in Different Cities

3.1. Distance and Determining the Visitation Model

Where the parents reside in different cities (for example, one party in Alanya or Antalya and the other in Ankara, Istanbul or Izmir), the classic schedule of every other weekend wears the child out on the road and adversely affects their education. For this reason, in its settled case law the Court of Cassation requires schedules with less frequent but longer meetings that necessarily include overnight stays.

3.2. Same City vs. Different City and the Approach of the Court of Cassation

In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 16.09.2021, E. 2021/4248, K. 2021/6118, it was explained that, given today’s improved transport options and where the parties have not expressly requested it in their petitions, it is not correct for the court to issue an alternative and conditional ruling such as “if they live in the same city, as follows; if they live in different cities, as follows”. The court must set a clear schedule based on the parties’ actual residences at the time of the judgment, and in the event of relocation a modification action should be filed according to the new circumstances.

3.3. Protecting the Child’s Education and School Routine

In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 12.09.2023, E. 2023/5701, K. 2023/3865, it was found that a school-age child’s academic performance, social environment and need for rest must be protected, and that tiring journeys during school terms that run into the night or prevent preparation for school the next day would be contrary to the best interests of the child. For this reason, intercity meetings should mainly be spread over the mid-year (semester) break, mid-term breaks, the summer holiday and alternating official/religious holidays.

3.4. Clearly Defining Transport and Handover Arrangements

For a court judgment to be enforceable, the handover places and times must be clear. The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (16.10.2014, E. 2014/8812, K. 2014/19954) held that the ruling must leave no room for doubt, and that judgments containing vague expressions such as “at times agreed between the parties” or “on any days they wish” are not capable of enforcement.

3.5. Travel and Transport Costs

Transport costs are a frequent subject of dispute. According to the judgment of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 23.03.2023, E. 2022/10991, K. 2023/1311, it is contrary to procedure and law to include, in an action for the arrangement of personal contact, a separate ruling on the sharing of travel and journey expenses, since travel costs are not regarded as a direct accessory of the personal contact action. The parties may freely agree on the sharing of costs within the framework of an uncontested (consensual) divorce protocol.

4. Cross-Border Personal Contact Where the Parents Live in Different Countries

4.1. Characteristics of International Personal Contact

The residence of one of the parents in a foreign country (for example Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, the Netherlands, etc.) gives personal contact an international character. In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 11.09.2014, E. 2014/2247, K. 2014/17069, it was accepted that, for a parent living abroad, extended personal contact with overnight stays should be established during the semester and summer holidays.

4.2. Balancing the Length of Visits Against Custody Rights

While it is natural for visits abroad to be longer, they must not reach a level that prevents the custodial parent from actually exercising their custody rights:

4.3. The Burden of Collecting and Handing Over the Child Abroad

In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 02.07.2024, E. 2024/3395, K. 2024/5203, a landmark principle was established: “The party not awarded custody cannot be placed under an obligation to personally collect or hand over the child in a foreign country.” Handover obligations that are impossible or excessively burdensome to perform due to inability to obtain a visa, financial hardship or travel obstacles cannot be imposed on the parties; the handover point should be set within the boundaries of the child’s habitual residence or at airports.

4.4. Passports, Visas and Travel Consents

Obtaining a passport and a visa so that the child can be taken abroad is subject to the consent of the custodial parent or an express authorisation to that effect by the court. The protocol should clarify who will keep the passport, who will bear the visa costs and the scope of travel health insurance.

4.5. The Risk of Non-Return of the Child and the 1980 Hague Convention

The greatest legal risk in international personal contact is the child being retained and not brought back to Türkiye at the end of the visitation period. Such disputes are governed by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, in force through Law No. 5717. The main purpose of the Convention is to secure the prompt return of the child to their habitual residence (permanent centre of life). In determining the habitual residence, it is not the child’s nationality but their school life, social environment and actual centre of life that are taken into account.

4.6. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments (MÖHUK)

Custody and personal contact judgments obtained from a foreign court cannot be enforced in Türkiye unless a recognition and enforcement action is filed before the Turkish family courts and finalised in accordance with the Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure (MÖHUK).

4.7. Language, Culture and Parental Alienation Syndrome

In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 18.04.2024, E. 2024/2660, K. 2024/2669, it was stated that parental alienation may develop between a child and a parent who have lived apart for a long time, and that strengthening the child’s bond with the other parent again with specialist support is required by the child’s best interests.

5. Comparison Table: Same City, Different City and Different Country Models

Criterion Living in the Same City Living in Different Cities Living in Different Countries
Weekend Visits Twice a month (1st and 3rd or 2nd and 4th weekends, overnight) Generally not applied, or one long weekend per month Not applicable
Semester (Mid-Year) Break 1 week of the break, overnight 1 week of the break, uninterrupted and overnight The whole semester break or 7–10 days of it, overnight
Summer Holiday Visits 15 days to 1 month 20 days to 1 month, uninterrupted and overnight 30 to 45 days (a period that does not paralyse custody rights)
Religious / Official Holidays Certain days of the holiday on an alternating basis The whole holiday, alternating in odd/even years Added to holiday periods depending on travel options
Digital / Video Communication 1–2 days a week at set times 2–3 days a week within a regular time slot Video calls 2–3 days a week, taking the time difference into account
Place of Handover and Return Child Handover Centre or a common meeting point Handover centre/bus station/airport in the place where the child lives Airport at the child’s habitual residence / within Türkiye’s borders
Legal Safeguard Mechanism Law No. 5395, Art. 41/A (Child Handover Centre) Law No. 5395, Art. 41/A (Child Handover Centre) 1980 Hague Convention, Laws No. 5717 and 5718

6. Restriction, Obstruction and Enforcement of Personal Contact

6.1. Grounds for Restricting or Removing Personal Contact

The right to personal contact is neither unlimited nor absolute. Where it is proven by concrete evidence that the child’s physical or mental development is endangered, or that there is serious neglect by the parent, a risk of sexual abuse or violence, substance addiction, or a danger of the child being abducted abroad, the court may restrict personal contact (daytime only, without overnight stays, or supervised by a specialist) or remove it entirely (Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, 02.04.2024, E. 2023/10052, K. 2024/2288).

6.2. Law No. 7343 and Child Handover Centres (48-Hour Notice Rule)

Law No. 7343 completely abolished the former system of handing over children through enforcement officers; in its place, Child Handover Centres have been established, operating within the Directorates of Judicial Support and Victim Services (ADM) of the Ministry of Justice.

Under Article 41/C of the Child Protection Law No. 5395, a very important rule has been introduced: the parent entitled to personal contact must notify the directorate at least 48 hours before the visitation day that they will come to collect the child. If this notice is not given, the other parent cannot be required to bring the child to the handover centre.

6.3. Breach of Personal Contact: Disciplinary Detention and Change of Custody

If the custodial parent fails to hand over the child without a justified excuse or persistently obstructs personal contact:

7. Changed Circumstances and Re-arranging Personal Contact (Modification)

Personal contact orders do not constitute res judicata (they do not acquire substantive finality). Where the child grows older, starts school, or one of the parties is transferred or relocates to another city or country, an action for the re-arrangement (modification) of personal contact may be filed under Article 326 TMK before the Family Court of the place where the child lives (Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, 25.04.2018, E. 2016/17493, K. 2018/5664).

Key Evidence to Be Submitted to the Court in a Modification Action:

8. Model Parenting and Visitation Schedules for Practice

In line with the case law of the Court of Cassation and the recommendations of specialist pedagogues, the following are sample schedules that are readily enforceable and leave no room for doubt at the enforcement stage:

8.1. Model Schedule for Parents Living in Different Cities

8.2. Cross-Border Model Schedule for Parents Living in Different Countries

9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

“Does moving to another city end the right to personal contact with the child?”
No. The relocation of the parent or the child to another city does not end the right to personal contact; however, an action must be filed to adapt the visitation schedule to the new distance.

“Can my ex-spouse take the child on holiday abroad?”
Yes, if the court judgment expressly grants the right to take the child abroad or if the custodial parent has given a notarised letter of consent. Otherwise, passport procedures and exits at the border may be blocked.

“Do an enforcement officer and the police come for the child handover?”
No. Law No. 7343 abolished the handover model involving enforcement officers. Handovers are carried out at Child Handover Centres in the presence of specialists (psychologists, pedagogues) of the Directorate of Judicial Support and Victim Services.

“Do I have to give notice before the visitation day?”
Yes. Under Article 41/C of Law No. 5395, the entitled parent must give notice at least 48 hours before the handover time that they will come to collect the child.

“What happens if the child does not want to meet?”
The views of a child of the age of discernment are assessed by specialists. Whether the refusal is based on a justified reason or on manipulation by the other parent is presented to the court in a Social Investigation Report.

10. Conclusion and Legal Assessment

The fact that divorced parents live in different cities or countries does not legally eliminate personal contact with the child. Within the framework of Articles 182, 323, 324 and 326 of the Turkish Civil Code and international conventions, the fundamental criterion is always the best interests of the child. The decisions of the Court of Cassation accept that schedules of quality personal contact with overnight stays, covering holiday periods, should be established so that the child is not worn down by constant and exhausting journeys, the child’s education and school routine are protected, and at the same time the parental bond is not broken.

In cross-border and intercity disputes, it is vitally important that judgments are enforceable and that dates, times, handover points and digital communication days are clearly set out. In order to avoid any loss of rights and to protect the psychological integrity of the child, it is advisable to seek professional legal advice from a lawyer in light of the circumstances of the specific case.

11. References

Legislation:

Case Law:

Academic Works:

Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.