2. Legal Department
Principal Number: 2020/565
Decision Number: 2020/4810
“Justice Text”
COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE: Changing the Surname of the Child with the Custody of the Mother
The judgment given by the local court at the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties, the date and number of which is shown above, was appealed by the defendant institution, the document was read and the necessary was discussed:
In the petition of the plaintiff woman; The defendant, who is the father of common child Umut, and the Sivas Family Court divorced with the decision numbered 2005/1022 Main, 2005/991 decision, that the custody of the common child Umut was given to him, that he had made his second marriage with a person named Göksel Yerlikaya, that the common child and their surnames arguing that there were problems due to the fact that the child was different, he demanded and filed a lawsuit to change the surname of the common child Umut from “Yıldızhan” to “Yerlikaya”. As a result of the trial and the evidence gathered by the court; TMKmd. In accordance with Article 27 and Article 20 of the Constitution, the request to change the surname of the child whose custody is given to the mother can be accepted if there is a justifiable reason. Dispute between the parties; It is at the point of whether it is possible to replace the surname of the child born in wedlock with the surname that the plaintiff mother gained due to her second marriage. In the Turkish Legal System, it is understood that a child born in a marriage union can take his father’s surname or, depending on the case law, the mother’s surname, whose custody is given to him as a result of divorce, if it is in the best interests of the child, 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, while the case should be rejected, was contrary to the procedure and the law and required reversal.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously resolved that the appealed judgment be quashed for the reason indicated above, that the appeal fee be returned to the depositor upon request, within 15 days from the notification of this decision, with the possibility of rectification open. 15.10.2020
