New System for Enforcement of Child Custody and Personal Relationship Decisions

One of the most sensitive areas in family law is the issue of enforcing court decisions regarding child custody and establishing personal relationships with children. For many years, the enforcement of these decisions was carried out by enforcement offices, within the framework of classical enforcement law logic. However, this model was subject to serious criticism regarding the best interests of the child. In particular, the need for door-to-door visits, the visibility of law enforcement, the financial burden, the transfer of tension between the parties to the enforcement process, and the psychological trauma to the child were the most criticized aspects of the old system. With the provisions added to the Child Protection Law No. 5395 by Law No. 7343 and the regulations issued within this framework, a completely new model was adopted for the enforcement of child custody and personal relationship decisions; this model was implemented throughout the country as of May 8, 2023.

The fundamental approach of the new system is to move the processes of child custody and establishing personal relationships away from the image of "coercive enforcement" and towards a child-centered, expert-supported, and public social service-oriented framework. Therefore, the process has largely moved away from being a classic enforcement action conducted in an enforcement office with fees and expenses; instead, a special application has been developed, centered around the Directorates of Judicial Support and Victim Services, conducted in child interview centers, and prioritizing the best interests of the child. Ministry of Justice sources also clearly state that the new application is carried out in child-friendly interview centers and through experts, with the best interests of the child in mind.

This article will examine in detail the legal basis of the new system for executing child custody and personal relationship decisions, the responsible and authorized unit, the application procedure, the custody order mechanism, expert involvement, the complaint and disciplinary detention regime, how expenses are covered, and the most common problems encountered in practice.

1. Why was the old system criticized?

In the old system, decisions regarding child custody and relationship management were largely handled within the framework of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. While this structure seemed functional in terms of "enforcement of the decision" in a technical sense, it was insufficient considering child psychology and the nature of family disputes. This is because the custody process was often conducted with a debt collection mentality, forcing parties to incur expenses, and the process could escalate into a high-tension enforcement conflict. The Ministry of Justice's statements regarding the new system also indicate that removing child custody and relationship management from the duties of enforcement offices and having these processes carried out by experts without fees are among the goals of the Judicial Reform.

At the heart of these criticisms is not only procedural efficiency, but also the direct protection of the child. The fact that the handover or visitation day takes place amidst waiting officials, arguments between the parties, and an atmosphere of coercive enforcement could lead to the child becoming the object of conflict between the parties, rather than the implementation of the court decision. The new system's starting point is precisely this: the handover of the child and the establishment of personal relationships should not be treated merely as "the forceful enforcement of a judgment," but as a special process that considers the child's emotional, social, and psychological safety. The purpose of Law No. 5395 is to regulate the procedures and principles related to guaranteeing the rights and well-being of children.

2. What is the legal basis for the new system?

The main legal basis for the new system is Article 41/A and subsequent articles added to the Child Protection Law No. 5395 by Law No. 7343. These regulations stipulate that court orders and precautionary measures regarding the delivery of children and the establishment of personal relationships with children will now be implemented through a specific procedure. The law separately regulates the responsible and authorized unit, application procedure, delivery locations, complaint process, sanction regime, and reimbursement of expenses. Furthermore, the "Regulation on the Implementation of Court Orders and Precautionary Measures Regarding the Delivery of Children and the Establishment of Personal Relationships with Children," published in the Official Gazette dated August 4, 2022, and numbered 31913, forms the secondary legislation basis for the implementation.

According to the law's structure, Article 41/A regulates the responsible and authorized unit, Article 41/B the execution of court orders or precautionary measures regarding the delivery of children, Article 41/C the execution of court orders or precautionary measures regarding the establishment of personal contact with the child, Article 41/D the delivery locations, Article 41/E the complaint procedure, and Article 41/F the disciplinary imprisonment to be applied in case of opposition to this process. Article 41/H stipulates that the procedures are exempt from fees and that all expenses, except for attorney fees, will be covered from the Ministry of Justice budget.

3. Which unit is responsible and authorized in the new system?

The most significant change in the new model is that child custody and relationship-building procedures are no longer handled by traditional enforcement offices, but the Directorates of Judicial Support and Victim Services . In locations where such a directorate does not exist, the registry office of the civil courts, designated by the Ministry of Justice, will perform this task. As clearly stated in the implementation guidelines, in the new system, procedures are carried out by the directorates with expert participation.

The primary criterion for jurisdiction the child's place of residence. Indeed, the implementation guidelines state that the jurisdiction of the directorates in enforcing court judgments and protective orders is determined according to the child's place of residence. This distinction is crucial in practice because the parties' place of residence and the child's place of residence may not always be the same. Therefore, when determining where to file an application, the child's place of residence, not the rights holder's, should be considered.

4. Which decisions are subject to this system?

The new system covers judgments and interim injunctions issued by family courts child custody or establishing personal contact with a child . This includes not only final judgments but also interim injunctions. The explicit use of both "judgment" and "interim injunction" in the text of the law indicates that decisions providing temporary legal protection will also be implemented under this regime.

Within this framework, decisions regarding the delivery of a child to a specific person as a result of custody arrangements, decisions indicating the dates and times of personal visitation established in favor of the other parent regardless of whether the child is co-custodial or custodial, and temporary measures issued by the family court in these matters are subject to the new system. The concepts of "right holder" and "obligated party" are also defined within this framework in the guidelines and implementation manuals: in child delivery, the right holder is the person to whom custody has been granted; in personal visitation, it is the person who does not have custody or to whom the child has not been entrusted.

5. How to apply?

According to the law, if a court order or precautionary measure regarding the delivery of a child or the establishment of a personal relationship is not complied with by the obligated party, the rights holder may apply to the directorate. This statement is important; the first step of the system is not the direct use of force, but rather the principle of ensuring the voluntary compliance of the decision. Articles 41/B regarding child delivery and 41/C regarding personal relationships adopt the same logic.

Upon application, the directorate contacts the responsible party and requests that the child be brought to the designated child interview center. The implementation guide clearly explains that, as with child handover, contact is made with the responsible party and a request is made for the child to be brought to the interview center during the establishment of personal contact. If the responsible party brings the child, the directorate hands the child over to the rightful owner or initiates the personal contact process in accordance with the scope of the decision. The fact that the first stage of the process is based on communication and consensual compliance demonstrates that the new system is based on a "child-centered approach" rather than a "coercive enforcement" approach.

6. Where will the delivery take place?

One of the most visible differences in the new system is that the procedures are now delivery locations . According to Article 41/D of Law No. 5395, procedures related to the delivery of children and the enforcement of court orders and precautionary measures concerning the establishment of personal relationships with children are carried out at delivery locations determined by the directorate. The same article stipulates that suitable delivery locations shall be determined or created by governorships and municipalities, and that vehicles and drivers shall be provided.

The Ministry of Justice has described these facilities child interview centers designed in a child-friendly manner . The main philosophy of the new practice is to prevent the handover or interview from becoming a scene of family conflict; to bring the child together in a neutral, safe, and pedagogically appropriate environment. Ministry sources clearly emphasize that handover procedures will take place in child interview centers, not at the parents' doorsteps, and that the best interests of the child will be paramount in all cases.

7. Why is the role of experts so important?

Perhaps the most critical element of the new system psychologists, pedagogues, social workers, child development specialists, and guidance counselors . Official sources state that the execution of court orders and precautionary measures will be carried out by specialists appointed by the directorate; in places where specialists are not available, it will be done by teachers. This shows that the delivery and interview process is not only an administrative organization but also a professional process that takes into account the child's emotional needs.

The role of experts in this process is not limited to simply handing over the child. Establishing communication with the parties, reducing the child's anxiety, maintaining a tension-free environment, planning the interview in a way that does not disrupt the child's education and daily life, and assessing the child's emotional state when necessary are also important. The Ministry of Justice's promotional and guidance texts also state that communication with the child and the parties will be prioritized, and that the children's expectations and educational lives will be taken into consideration.

8. What is a delivery order and what is its purpose?

The law has preserved the delivery order mechanism in the new system to ensure compliance with the requirements of the decision . If the obligated party acts contrary to the order given to them during the process of executing the decision regarding the delivery of the child or the establishment of personal contact, or obstructs the execution of the order, disciplinary imprisonment may be imposed. Article 41/F explicitly regulates this matter.

The key point to note here is that the new system does not "remove coercion from the center and completely eliminate sanctions." In other words, the process is child-friendly and communication-focused; however, the repeated sabotage of court orders is not left without consequences. This balance is important. On the one hand, the aim is to prevent the child from being traumatized, and on the other hand, to prevent one parent from effectively rendering the court order ineffective. The implementation guide also details that disciplinary imprisonment is foreseen in cases of non-compliance with the delivery order and obstruction of its execution.

9. Under what circumstances is disciplinary imprisonment applied?

According to Article 41/F of Law No. 5395, there are three main types of sanctions. Firstly, those who act contrary to or obstruct the execution of a delivery order related to the enforcement of a court order or precautionary measure regarding the delivery of a child may be punished with disciplinary imprisonment of up to three months upon complaint made within one month . Secondly, those who act contrary to or obstruct the execution of a delivery order related to the enforcement of decisions regarding establishing personal contact with a child may be subject to disciplinary imprisonment of three to ten days . Thirdly, if the rights holder to whom the child is entrusted for the purpose of establishing personal contact fails to bring the child to the designated location at the end of the decision period, disciplinary imprisonment of up to three months may also be imposed

This provision is extremely important because the system sanctions not only the obligor who fails to hand over the child, but also the rights holder who does not return the child at the end of the meeting. Thus, the right to personal contact does not become a tool of unlimited de facto superiority for one party. An alternative interpretation would have turned personal contact into a de facto area where the risk of not returning the child arises. The legislator has prevented this.

10. How does the complaint and appeal process work?

against the actions and decisions of the directorate may be filed with the family court located where the directorate is situated, within one week . This provision is found in Article 41/E. Therefore, the directorate's actions are not entirely outside judicial review; the family court will review whether the process has been conducted in accordance with the law.

The application guide explains that this supervision takes two different forms. In the first case, there is a complaint against the actions and decisions of the directorate; in this case, the family court can suspend the execution of the actions and make a decision promptly, either based on the file or, if necessary, by hearing the relevant parties. In the second case, there is a complaint regarding a request for disciplinary imprisonment due to non-compliance with the delivery order or obstruction of the decision; a different procedure is followed here, the person complained against is notified of the hearing date, their defense is heard, and a decision is made after evaluating the evidence.

11. What did the new system bring in terms of expenses and fees?

One of the most tangible innovations of the new system is the elimination of the financial burden. According to Article 41/H, procedures related to the execution of court orders or precautionary measures concerning the delivery of children and the establishment of personal relationships are exempt from all fees required under the Law on Fees and other laws. Furthermore, all expenses incurred for carrying out these procedures, excluding attorney fees, are covered by the Ministry of Justice budget.

This change has significantly eliminated the problem of "parents constantly having to incur expenses to see their children," a much-debated issue under the old system. The Ministry of Justice's statements clearly indicate that parents will no longer have to pay any fees for these procedures; all expenses will be covered by the Ministry. In practice, this aspect of the system has transformed into a more accessible model, removing the dependence on economic power for child custody and visitation rights.

12. Is there a connection between the new system and changes in custody arrangements?

Yes. Law No. 7343 not only changed the delivery and personal relationship process, but also, with a new provision added to Article 324 of the Turkish Civil Code, to changing custody if the parent granted custody fails to fulfill the requirements of the personal relationship arrangement, provided that it is not contrary to the child's best interests . This is clearly stated in the implementation guide.

This regulation demonstrates that the new system is not merely a procedural mechanism; it also foresees more serious consequences in the realm of substantive law against custodians who systematically violate personal contact decisions. Of course, changing custody is not an automatic outcome; the best interests of the child are paramount in each specific case. However, the continuous sabotage of personal contact decisions is no longer seen solely as an enforcement problem, but as a violation of the child's right to establish a relationship with their parent and a situation that can also affect the custody assessment.

13. What happens if the decisions of Law No. 6284 conflict with decisions regarding personal relationships?

One of the significant problems in practice is the overlap between protective or preventive measures issued under Law No. 6284 and existing personal contact decisions. The implementation guide states that this issue is frequently raised and that in cases where there is no confidentiality order, and personal contact with the child has not been terminated or restricted, the existing personal contact decision must be enforced. In other words, every protective measure under Law No. 6284 does not automatically nullify a personal contact decision.

However, this area is very sensitive. Because in some cases, the risk of violence, restraining orders, communication bans, or confidentiality orders can directly affect the procedure for delivery and personal contact. Therefore, in the specific case, the decision under Law No. 6284 and the family court's ruling on personal contact should be evaluated together. Instead of automatic interpretations, the scope of the decision and its consequences for the child should be carefully interpreted. In practice, the most sound approach is to clearly present the discrepancy to the directorate and the family court, and if necessary, to request a separate limitation or reorganization of personal contact. This conclusion stems from a systematic interpretation of the explanations in the guide.

14. What are the practical advantages of the new system?

The first major advantage of the new system is that it removes the child directly from the conflict of execution. The fact that handover takes place in child interview centers, that experts are involved in the process, and that priority is given to consensual execution serves the purpose of reducing trauma to the child. The Ministry of Justice also emphasizes in its statements that the new model is child-friendly and expert-supported.

The second advantage is economic accessibility. The inclusion of fees and expenses in the Ministry's budget provides significant relief, especially for parents who repeatedly have to go through the process to establish personal contact with their child. The third advantage is that supervision and enforcement become more targeted. The system reduces the appearance of coercive enforcement while simultaneously exposing those who sabotage the decision to disciplinary imprisonment and, in some cases, even the possibility of a change in custody.

15. Points that still need attention during implementation

While the new system represents a significant reform, it does not automatically solve every problem. Firstly, the court order or injunction supporting the application to the directorate must be clear, enforceable, and unambiguous. If the date, time, delivery conditions, and the scope of personal contact are unclear in the decision, implementation may encounter problems. Furthermore, the child's school schedule, health status, special needs, and high levels of conflict between the parties can also create practical difficulties. Even with expert support, the directorate's scope of application is limited if the court decision is unclear. This assessment is a legal conclusion stemming from the structure of the laws and guidelines.

Another important point is the misconception that the new system is "completely without sanctions." However, as explained above, disciplinary imprisonment can be applied in cases of non-compliance with the delivery order, obstruction of the order's execution, and failure to return the child after personal contact. Therefore, the parties should view the system not only as a conciliatory social service activity but also as a special enforcement regime aimed at seriously upholding the court's decision.

Conclusion

The new system introduced for enforcing decisions regarding child custody and personal contact with children represents a fundamental paradigm shift in Turkish family law and enforcement practice. The issue is no longer simply "how the decision will be enforced by force," but rather the child's best interests, a child-friendly environment, expert support, the elimination of financial burdens , and the mitigation of parental conflict . The articles added to the Child Protection Law No. 5395 by Law No. 7343, and the related regulations, have institutionalized this new approach.

Today, child custody and relationship decisions have largely diverged from the traditional enforcement office practice; they have transformed into a specialized field focused on Judicial Support and Victim Services Directorates and child interview centers, with experts playing an active role. However, the system does not leave resistance to court orders without consequences. Disobedience to a custody order can result in disciplinary imprisonment, while systematic violations of the relationship arrangement can lead to consequences ranging up to a custody assessment. Therefore, the new system offers a more humane structure in favor of the child and a more balanced approach in terms of the binding nature of the decision.

The most important consequence for legal practitioners is this: decisions regarding child custody and personal relationships can no longer be handled with the logic of a simple enforcement case. The application authority, jurisdiction criteria, place of custody, expert involvement, complaint procedure, and sanction regime have become separate areas of expertise. Therefore, in such disputes, it is necessary to be familiar not only with the existence of the judgment but also with how the judgment is applied within the new system.