Legal Department
Case Number: 2016/26017
Case Number: 2017/14036
“Judgment Text”
COURT: Family Court
CASE TYPE: Judicial Intervention in the Marital Union
The plaintiff has appealed the decision rendered by the local court in the case between the parties specified above by date and number; the document has been reviewed, and the necessary matters have been discussed:
The plaintiff, the father, stated that the name of the child born on September 21, 2016, was given as “…” by the defendant, the mother, without notifying him, and argued that a decision regarding the child’s name could be made with the parents’ consent.
He filed this lawsuit requesting the judge’s intervention in this matter pursuant to Article 195 of the Turkish Civil Code; The case was dismissed on the grounds that “pursuant to the relevant provision of the Population Services Law No. 5490, the birth registration may be filed by the mother, and there is no legal obstacle to the mother naming the child on her own,” and the plaintiff filed an appeal.
Regarding the parties’ birth records: It is understood that the parties married on September 13, 2014, the child was born on September 21, 2016, and the child’s name was registered as “…” following the defendant mother’s application to the Population Registry Office on September 28, 2016.
The child’s name was chosen by the parents (Turkish Civil Code, Art. 339/5). In the event of failure to fulfill obligations arising from the marital union or a dispute regarding a significant matter pertaining to the marital union, the spouses may separately or jointly request the judge’s intervention. The judge advises the spouses regarding their obligations; attempts to reconcile them; and may, with the mutual consent of the spouses, seek assistance from experts. If necessary, the judge may take the measures provided for by law upon the request of one of the spouses (Turkish Civil Code, Art. 195). Birth registration: The child’s name may be given by the parents, guardians, trustees, or, in their absence, the child’s grandparents or adult siblings, or persons in whose care the child resides (Law No. 5490, Art. 15/5).
.
There is no provision regarding the naming of a child in the Population Services Law, on which the court based its reasoning, nor in Article 15/5 of the Law. The article regulates the reporting of the birth. According to the legal reasoning outlined above, the joint naming of a child by the parents is a concept that distinguishes the child from others, enables the child to be identified as an individual, and helps distinguish family members from one another.
However, if the parents disagree regarding the child’s name within the scope of parental authority, they may separately or jointly request the court’s intervention. In this case, the Court must collect the evidence submitted by the parties in accordance with due process and render a decision regarding the request within the framework of the procedure outlined in Article 195 of the Turkish Civil Code; however, issuing a written judgment is incorrect, and the decision must be overturned.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated above, it was unanimously decided to annul the appealed decision, to refund the appeal fee upon request within 15 days of the service of this decision, and to leave the possibility of correction open. December 4, 2017 (Monday)