2. Legal Department
Base Number: 2020/565
Decision Number: 2020/4810
“Case Law Text”
Court :Family Court
Case type: changing the last name of the child whose custody is in the mother
At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the provision given by the Local Court, shown above with the date and number, was appealed by the defendant institution, the documents were read and discussed and considered in accordance with the decency:
The female plaintiff in the petition; the common Father of the family court with the defendant’s children’s hope Sivas 2005/1022 based on Decision No. 2005/991 ref divorced with common custody child of hope that was given to him, and her second marriage Yerlikaya, named Celestial, common have different last names with their own child and, therefore, asserting that problems occurred by children’s hope common “Yildizhan the” surname “Yerlikaya” be changed to your request and has been the case. As a result of the trial by the court and the evidence collected; the plaintiff made his second marriage, he also had a child from his second marriage, Goksel Yerlikaya also had a son from his first marriage, the family name of everyone except the plaintiff’s son Umut is “Yerlikaya”, this situation negatively affects the child, TMKmd. 27 and 20 of the Constitution. pursuant to Article custody given to the mother in case of just cause to accept the child’s last name can be modified, so is the case with the acceptance of hope’s “Yildizhan the” surname “Yerlikaya” it was decided that the institution should be changed to the decision was appealed by the defendant. The dispute between the parties is whether it is possible to replace the surname of the child born in the Union of marriage with the surname acquired by birth in marriage with the surname of the plaintiff mother due to her second marriage Dec. In the Turkish legal system, it is understood that a child born in the Union of marriage can take the surname of his father or, according to case law, the mother’s celibacy surname given to him as a result of divorce can take if the child has the superior benefit and there is no other legal regulation in this regard. In the face of this situation, the decision to accept the case by making a mistake in the interpretation of the provisions of the law is against the procedure and the law and required to break it.
Conclusion: it was unanimously decided that the Appellate provision should be broken for the reason shown above, that the appellate advance fee should be returned to the Depositor upon request, and that the way to correct the decision should be clear within 15 days of the notification of this decision. 15.10.2020 (Thu.)
