Türkiye applies the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction through Law No. 5717, and a return application succeeds where the child is under 16, was habitually resident in another contracting state before removal, and the removal breached custody rights actually being exercised. Applications go through the Ministry of Justice to the Family Court where the child is located; filed within one year, return is ordered unless a narrow defense applies, such as consent or grave risk of harm. The court decides only whether to return the child, not custody.
Türkiye is a party to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which it applies through Law No. 5717 on the Legal Aspects and Scope of International Child Abduction. If a child has been wrongfully removed to Türkiye from another contracting state, or is being wrongfully retained here after an agreed visit, there is a dedicated procedure for securing the child's return, and it moves on a different logic from an ordinary custody case. The most important thing to understand at the outset is that a Hague return case decides where the custody question is answered, not what the answer is. The Turkish family court does not weigh which parent is the better parent or where the child would be happier; it decides whether the child should be returned to the country of habitual residence so that the courts there can rule, and it decides quickly, on narrow grounds, with the clock running against the left-behind parent from the day of the removal. This guide explains when the Convention applies, how an application is made through the Central Authorities, the role of the public prosecutor and of the applicant's own counsel, the one year rule and why delay is so costly, the defences available to the parent resisting return and how they are decided, what the court will not do, how a return order is enforced and appealed, and the practical steps a left-behind parent should take immediately.
Quick Answer: Under the 1980 Hague Convention and Law No. 5717, a parent whose child under sixteen has been wrongfully removed to or retained in Türkiye, in breach of rights of custody actually exercised under the law of the child's habitual residence, may apply for the child's return through the Central Authority of the country of habitual residence or directly to the Turkish Central Authority, the Ministry of Justice General Directorate of International Law and Foreign Relations. The return case is brought before the family court of the place where the child is located, the public prosecutor acts in the proceedings, and the applicant parent may and should instruct his or her own counsel to intervene. Where proceedings are commenced within one year of the removal or retention, the court orders return unless the respondent establishes one of the narrow defences in Article 13 or Article 20 of the Convention: consent or subsequent acquiescence, a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation, the objection of a child of sufficient age and maturity, or incompatibility with fundamental principles on human rights; after one year the respondent may additionally argue under Article 12 that the child is settled in the new environment. The court does not decide custody, and under Article 16 no custody decision on the merits may be made in Türkiye while the return application is pending. Rights of custody include a shared right to determine the child's residence arising by operation of law, so a parent without a court order may still apply. Return orders are appealed to the Regional Court of Appeal and enforced through the judicial support and victim services directorates.
The 1980 Convention rests on a single premise: that the courts of the country in which a child habitually lives are the right courts to decide the child's future, and that a parent who removes a child to another country in order to obtain a more favourable forum should not be allowed to profit from the removal. The Convention therefore creates a summary procedure whose only question is whether the child should go back, and whose only purpose is to restore the position that existed before the removal so that the custody dispute can be decided where it belongs. Article 19 states expressly that a decision on return is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue, and Article 16 prohibits the courts of the requested state from deciding custody on the merits once they have notice of a wrongful removal until the return application has been determined. For a parent in Türkiye, whether applicant or respondent, this means that the arguments that would decide a custody case, about the child's welfare, schooling, attachment, and the parents' respective merits, are largely irrelevant to a return case, and that the case is won or lost on the Convention's own questions of habitual residence, custody rights, timing, and the narrow defences.
Three conditions, set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention, must be satisfied for a return application to succeed, and the applicant bears the burden of establishing each of them.
Under Article 4 the Convention applies to a child who was under sixteen at the time of the removal or retention and ceases to apply when the child attains sixteen, even in the middle of proceedings. A return application concerning a child who turns sixteen before the court decides is dismissed, whatever its merits, and the left-behind parent is left to the ordinary custody and recognition procedures. Where a child is fifteen, the application must be made and pressed without any delay.
The child must have been habitually resident in a contracting state other than Türkiye immediately before the removal or retention. Habitual residence is a question of fact, not of nationality or legal domicile, and is assessed by reference to the child's actual life: where the child lived, attended school or nursery, was registered with doctors, had family and friends, and for how long, together with the parents' shared intentions about where the family was settled. A child who had lived in Germany for three years before being brought to Türkiye by one parent was habitually resident in Germany even if both parents are Turkish citizens; a child who had moved to Germany two weeks earlier under an arrangement the parents had not agreed was permanent may not have been. The Convention is in force between Türkiye and more than one hundred states, and the application is available only where the state of habitual residence is one of them.
Under Article 3 the removal or retention is wrongful where it breaches rights of custody attributed to a person under the law of the state of habitual residence, and those rights were actually being exercised, or would have been but for the removal. Rights of custody are defined in Article 5 to include rights relating to the care of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child's place of residence, and they may arise from a court order, from an agreement, or from the law of the state of habitual residence by operation of law. This last point is regularly misunderstood. A parent who has no custody order but who, under the law of the child's home country, shares the right to decide where the child lives, which married parents and in many countries unmarried parents do by default, has rights of custody for Convention purposes, and the other parent's removal of the child without that parent's consent is wrongful even though no court was ever involved. Conversely, a parent whose rights under the home country's law are limited to contact, with no say in the child's residence, does not have rights of custody and cannot apply for return, although he or she may apply under Article 21 for assistance in securing contact.
The Convention covers both removal, where the child is taken out of the state of habitual residence without the consent of the other custody holder, and retention, where the child was taken abroad lawfully, for a holiday or an agreed visit, and is then kept beyond the agreed period or in breach of the agreed conditions. Retention cases are common in Türkiye in the late summer, when a child brought for the school holidays is enrolled in a Turkish school instead of being returned, and the date of the wrongful retention, from which the one year period runs, is the date on which the child should have been returned or on which the retaining parent made clear that the child would not be.
Under Article 6 of the Convention each contracting state designates a Central Authority, and under Law No. 5717 the Central Authority for Türkiye is the Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of International Law and Foreign Relations, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Dış İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü. An application is made either through the Central Authority of the country where the child was habitually resident, which checks it and transmits it to the Turkish Central Authority, or directly to the Turkish Central Authority. The application states the identity of the applicant, the child, and the person alleged to have removed or retained the child, the child's date of birth, the grounds on which return is claimed, and all available information on the child's whereabouts, and is accompanied by the custody order or agreement where one exists, a statement of the applicable law of the state of habitual residence where the rights arise by operation of law, and the documents evidencing habitual residence. The Turkish Central Authority then takes the steps required by Article 7: locating the child where the address is unknown, through the police and the population and address records; seeking a voluntary return; and, where that fails, referring the matter to the public prosecutor to commence proceedings.
Under Article 6 of Law No. 5717 the return case is brought before the family court, aile mahkemesi, of the place where the child is located, or the civil court of first instance sitting as a family court where none exists, and under Article 7 the public prosecutor commences and conducts the proceedings on the Central Authority's referral. The applicant parent may, and in practice should, instruct his or her own lawyer to intervene in the proceedings as a party. The prosecutor represents the public interest in the Convention being applied correctly; the prosecutor does not represent the applicant, does not gather the applicant's evidence, does not answer the respondent's defences with the applicant's knowledge of the family, and does not necessarily appeal an adverse decision. Only the applicant's own counsel does those things, and the quality of the evidence on habitual residence, custody rights, and the defences is what decides the case. Law No. 5717 provides that the proceedings are conducted with priority and urgency, and the Convention's Article 11 expects a decision within six weeks, a target Turkish courts do not always meet but which counsel can press.
Article 12 of the Convention draws a line at one year from the wrongful removal or retention. Where the proceedings are commenced within one year, the court must order the return of the child forthwith unless one of the defences in Articles 13 or 20 is established. Where the proceedings are commenced after one year, the court must still order return, but the respondent may additionally establish that the child is now settled in the new environment, in which case the court may refuse. Settlement is proved by the ordinary evidence of a child's life: enrolment and progress at school, acquisition of the Turkish language, friendships, extended family, routine, and the passage of time itself. This is why delay is so costly to the left-behind parent. Every month that passes builds the other side's case for them, and Turkish schooling and language acquisition are precisely the evidence a settlement defence is made of. The one year period runs to the commencement of the proceedings before the Turkish court, not to the date of the application to a Central Authority, so a parent who applies to a foreign Central Authority eleven months after the removal and whose application reaches the Turkish court two months later is outside the year.
The defences are deliberately narrow, the burden of establishing them is on the parent resisting return, and even where a defence is established the court retains a discretion to order return. They are the following.
| Defence | Convention Article | What Must Be Shown |
|---|---|---|
| Rights not actually exercised | Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraph a | That the applicant was not actually exercising custody rights at the time of the removal or retention |
| Consent or acquiescence | Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraph a | That the applicant consented to the removal or retention beforehand, or acquiesced in it afterwards |
| Grave risk | Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraph b | That return would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation |
| Child's objection | Article 13, paragraph 2 | That the child objects to return and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which the child's views should be taken into account |
| Settlement | Article 12, paragraph 2 | Available only where proceedings commenced more than one year after the removal or retention; that the child is now settled in the new environment |
| Human rights | Article 20 | That return would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested state relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms |
Consent is agreement to the removal or retention given before it; acquiescence is acceptance of it afterwards, by words or by conduct inconsistent with an intention to seek return. Both are proved and disproved almost entirely on the parties' communications around the departure and in the following weeks: messages discussing the trip and its duration, travel bookings showing a return date, consent letters for travel, messages after the removal demanding return or, conversely, discussing the child's new school. A parent who, after learning that the child will not be returned, negotiates contact arrangements for a period without protesting the retention risks a finding of acquiescence, which is why the left-behind parent should state in writing, immediately and unambiguously, that the retention is not agreed and that return is demanded, before any discussion of practical arrangements.
The grave risk defence is the one most often raised and least often successful. The threshold is high: the risk must be grave, and the harm physical or psychological harm to the child or a situation the child cannot be expected to tolerate, not the ordinary disruption of a return or the respondent parent's own difficulties in returning. Allegations of domestic violence against the applicant are examined, but the question is whether the child would be at grave risk on return, and Turkish courts, following the practice of other contracting states, frequently find that protective measures available in the state of habitual residence, or undertakings given by the applicant and recorded in the return order, such as provision of separate accommodation, non molestation, and maintenance pending the custody decision there, are sufficient to meet the risk, and order return on those terms rather than refusing it. A respondent who relies on this defence must bring evidence, not assertion, and must address why the courts and authorities of the home country cannot protect the child.
Where the child objects to return and has reached an age and maturity at which the court should take account of the child's views, the court may refuse return. Turkish courts hear children, usually through the court's expert panel of a psychologist and social worker rather than directly, and give weight to the views of children from about ten or twelve upwards, with increasing weight as the child approaches sixteen. The court distinguishes a genuine objection to returning to the home country from a preference for the parent who is present, and from views that have been shaped by that parent, and an objection that reflects coaching carries little weight.
Settlement, as explained in section 4, is available only where more than a year has passed before proceedings commenced, and the respondent must show that the child is in fact integrated into the new environment in a physical and emotional sense, not merely present in it. The Article 20 human rights defence is reserved for exceptional cases in which return would be incompatible with the fundamental principles of Turkish law on human rights, and it is rarely argued and almost never successful.
The Turkish family court hearing a return application will not decide custody. Under Article 16 of the Convention and Article 15 of Law No. 5717, once the court is notified of a wrongful removal or retention, no court in Türkiye may decide the merits of custody until the return application has been determined or a reasonable time has passed without one being made. A custody order obtained in Türkiye by the abducting parent after the removal, whether from a family court unaware of the Convention application or by a consensual divorce in which the other parent did not participate, does not by itself justify keeping the child in Türkiye and is not a defence to return; under Article 17 the existence of such a decision is not a ground for refusing return, although the court may take its reasons into account. The court will also not conduct a welfare inquiry of the kind a custody case involves, will not generally order the expert reports that custody cases require except on the child's objection or a grave risk allegation, and will not delay the decision to allow the respondent to develop a settlement case.
Under Law No. 5717 the family court's decision on return may be appealed to the Regional Court of Appeal within the period applicable to family court decisions, and the Regional Court decides on the file with priority; a further appeal to the Court of Cassation lies under the general rules. The appeal does not automatically stay the return order, and the court may order immediate execution. Since Law No. 7343 of 2021, the enforcement of a return order, like the enforcement of custody and contact orders, is carried out through the judicial support and victim services directorates at the courthouses under the Child Protection Law, Law No. 5395, rather than through the enforcement offices: the directorate invites the respondent to comply voluntarily and, failing that, arranges the delivery of the child to the applicant or the applicant's representative by specialist staff, with the police involved only where necessary and never using force against the child. The Central Authority coordinates the child's travel arrangements with its counterpart in the state of habitual residence, and the applicant should be ready to travel to collect the child, or to have a representative do so, as soon as the order is enforceable.
The outcome of a return case is largely determined by what the left-behind parent does in the first weeks after the removal, and the following steps should be taken immediately and in parallel rather than in sequence. Apply at once through your own Central Authority, which is generally the fastest route because it is familiar with the forms and transmits the application through established channels, or directly to the Turkish Central Authority where speed requires, and instruct Turkish counsel at the same time rather than afterwards, so that counsel can press the Central Authority, prepare the intervention, and begin gathering evidence before the case reaches the court. Document habitual residence: school or nursery enrolment and attendance records, medical registration, the tenancy or ownership of the family home, employment records, club memberships, and anything that shows the pattern of the child's life before the removal. Document your custody rights: the court order or agreement, or, where the rights arise by operation of law, a statement of the provision of your country's law that gives them, which the Central Authority or a lawyer in that country can provide under Article 15 of the Convention. Preserve every communication around the departure and afterwards, since consent and acquiescence are proved and disproved almost entirely on these, and state in writing, immediately and unambiguously, that the retention is not agreed and return is demanded. Establish where the child is in Türkiye, using every lawful means available; where the address is unknown the Central Authority can seek to locate the child through the police and the population records. Do not travel to Türkiye to recover the child yourself; self help removal from Türkiye is a criminal offence under Article 234 of the Penal Code and destroys the applicant's standing in both countries. And if travel to Türkiye for the hearing is contemplated, take advice first: personal appearance is not always necessary, since counsel can represent the applicant, and it is not always advisable where the respondent has made allegations that could lead to the applicant's detention or a travel ban.
Make a return application under the 1980 Hague Convention through the Central Authority of the country where the child was habitually resident, or directly to the Turkish Central Authority at the Ministry of Justice, and instruct Turkish counsel at the same time. Speed matters: after one year the abducting parent can additionally argue that the child has settled here.
No. It decides whether the child returns to the country of habitual residence so that the courts there can determine custody. Under Article 16 of the Convention the Turkish court does not rule on the merits of custody while the return application is pending.
Usually yes. Rights of custody include a shared right to determine the child's place of residence, which in many countries both parents hold by operation of law. Removal without the other holder's consent is wrongful even where no order was ever made.
It applies only to children under sixteen and ceases to apply when the child reaches sixteen, even if proceedings are already under way. Where a child is close to that age the application must be made and pressed without any delay.
It is a wrongful retention under the Convention, which is treated in the same way as a removal. The one year period runs from the date the child should have been returned or the date the retaining parent made clear the child would not be.
The family court of the place where the child is located, with the public prosecutor conducting the proceedings on the Central Authority's referral and the applicant parent intervening through his or her own counsel.
Yes. The prosecutor represents the public interest in the Convention being applied, not you. Only your own counsel gathers your evidence, answers the defences with knowledge of the family, and pursues the appeal.
The defences are narrow: that you were not exercising custody rights, consent or acquiescence, a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation, the objection of a child of sufficient age and maturity, settlement where more than a year has passed, and incompatibility with fundamental human rights principles.
Almost entirely on the communications around the departure and afterwards: messages, travel bookings, consent letters, and your reaction once you learned the child would not return. State your objection in writing immediately and before discussing any practical arrangements.
Not necessarily. The question is whether the child would be at grave risk on return, and courts frequently find that protective measures in the home country or undertakings recorded in the return order meet the risk, and order return on those terms.
Where the child is of sufficient age and maturity, usually from about ten or twelve, the court hears the child through its expert panel and may take account of a genuine objection to return, distinguishing it from a preference for the present parent or coached views.
No. Under Article 17 of the Convention a custody decision in the requested state is not a ground for refusing return, and under Article 16 no such decision should have been made on the merits while the return application was pending.
The Convention expects six weeks and Law No. 5717 requires priority, but first instance decisions commonly take several months and appeals add more. Counsel can press for urgency; the applicant cannot afford to add delay of his or her own.
Yes, to the Regional Court of Appeal and then to the Court of Cassation under the general rules, but the appeal does not automatically stay the order and the court may direct immediate execution.
Through the judicial support and victim services directorate at the courthouse, which invites voluntary compliance and otherwise arranges the delivery of the child by specialist staff, with the Central Authorities coordinating the child's travel.
No. Removing the child yourself is a criminal offence under Article 234 of the Penal Code and destroys your position in both countries. Use the Convention procedure, and take advice before travelling even for the hearing.
A Hague return case in Türkiye is a summary procedure with a single question: should the child go back to the country of habitual residence so that the courts there can decide custody? The Convention, applied through Law No. 5717, answers that question in the applicant's favour wherever the child is under sixteen, was habitually resident in another contracting state, and was removed or retained in breach of custody rights actually exercised, unless the respondent establishes one of the narrow defences, and it answers it most reliably where proceedings are commenced within one year. The Turkish family court does not weigh the parents' merits, does not decide custody, and does not treat a Turkish custody order obtained after the removal as a reason to refuse. The left-behind parent who applies immediately, instructs Turkish counsel in parallel, documents habitual residence and custody rights, preserves the communications around the departure, and states an unambiguous objection in writing gives the Convention the facts it needs; the parent who waits gives the other side the settlement defence.
We act for left-behind parents in return applications before the Turkish family courts, from the Central Authority application through intervention in the proceedings, the evidence on habitual residence and custody rights, the response to the defences, appeal, and enforcement, and we advise respondent parents on the defences genuinely available to them and on the consequences of a wrongful removal for their position in both countries. For urgent advice on a removal to or retention in Türkiye, our legal team can assess the position and set out the steps required under the Convention and the current law.
