Our article explains how maintenance is recovered across borders to and from Türkiye: the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention and Türkiye's declarations, the Central Authority, applicable law, enforcement of foreign maintenance orders and modification.
A parent in London, Berlin or Toronto holding a child support order against a former partner who has moved to Istanbul faces a familiar problem: the order is valid where it was made but worthless unless it can be enforced where the debtor and the debtor's income are. The reverse is equally common, with a parent in Türkiye seeking support from a debtor working abroad. Many families, and many of their lawyers, assume that the only route is to instruct local counsel in the other country and bring a full enforcement action. In fact, Türkiye participates in an international cooperation system built precisely for this situation, operated by central authorities and largely free of charge for child support creditors. The centrepiece of that system is the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which entered into force for Türkiye on 1 February 2017. Türkiye's declarations on ratification make the Convention considerably broader in its relations with Türkiye than many practitioners realise, while one reservation creates a trap for families relying on out-of-court maintenance agreements. This article explains the treaty framework, Türkiye's declarations and reservation, how the Turkish Central Authority works, the available applications, free legal assistance, the applicable law, recognition and enforcement of foreign orders, the position of non-Convention states, modification, and the practical issues that most often delay recovery.
1. The Core Problem: Creditor and Debtor in Different States
Cross-border maintenance cases share one feature: the creditor and the debtor live in different countries. That raises three distinct questions. Which law determines whether maintenance is owed and how much? Which country's authorities may decide the claim? And, decisively in practice, how will the decision be enforced in the country where the debtor and the debtor's assets are located? Each question is governed by its own rules, and the answer to one affects the others. An order obtained where the creditor lives remains on paper unless it is recognised where the debtor's income can be reached. Strategy in cross-border maintenance should therefore start from the place of enforcement, not the place of decision. The recurring nature of maintenance adds a further difficulty. Unlike a one-off debt, maintenance falls due month after month, and when a debtor stops paying, the creditor may need to restart enforcement repeatedly. A system designed for ongoing cooperation between states is therefore far more valuable than any single judgment.
2. The Treaty Framework and How the Instruments Interact
Turkish private international law gives precedence to international conventions to which Türkiye is a party, and maintenance is an area governed largely by treaty. The instruments potentially relevant in relations with Türkiye are the 1956 United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, the 1958 Hague Convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning maintenance obligations towards children, the 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, the 1973 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations, and the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention. The 2007 Convention itself regulates its relationship with the earlier texts. Between states that are both party to it, it replaces the 1958 and 1973 Hague recognition conventions and the 1956 New York Convention to the extent their scope overlaps. Where the other state is not party to the 2007 Convention, the older instruments continue to apply. The 2007 Convention contains no rules on applicable law, so for Türkiye the 1973 Hague Convention on applicable law remains the governing instrument on that question.
3. Türkiye and the 2007 Convention: Broader Than It Looks
Türkiye ratified the 2007 Convention on 7 October 2016, and it entered into force for Türkiye on 1 February 2017. By default, the Convention applies to maintenance obligations arising from a parent-child relationship towards a person under 21, with spousal support covered for recognition and enforcement mainly where it is claimed together with child support. Türkiye's declarations significantly widen that scope. Under them, the child support provisions extend to children under 25 who are continuing their education. The Convention as a whole also extends, without any age limit, to maintenance between spouses, to disabled children unable to support themselves, and to parents in need of care. In practice, this means that the Convention machinery can be used with Türkiye not only for child support but also for post-divorce spousal maintenance and for support owed to elderly parents. There is an important caveat. An extended scope operates between two states only to the extent that both have made corresponding declarations. Before relying on the extended scope, practitioners should check what the other state has declared.
4. The Turkish Central Authority: the Maintenance Office
Each contracting state designates a central authority, and the system runs through cooperation between them. In Türkiye, that role is performed by the Maintenance Office (Nafaka Bürosu) within the Directorate General for Foreign Relations and EU Affairs of the Ministry of Justice in Ankara. The Maintenance Office transmits applications from Türkiye to foreign central authorities, receives applications from abroad and handles the related correspondence. Within Türkiye, it acts through the Chief Public Prosecutors' Offices, which bring proceedings to recognise and enforce foreign maintenance decisions, initiate enforcement proceedings, seek new maintenance decisions from the competent courts and pursue amicable solutions such as mediation. The central authority system can also help locate the debtor, trace the debtor's assets, bring proceedings to establish parentage where necessary, and assist with evidence and service of documents. The practical significance is considerable: a creditor abroad can have proceedings conducted against a debtor in Türkiye through the creditor's own national central authority, without first having to instruct Turkish counsel.
5. Applications Available to Creditors
The 2007 Convention offers creditors several distinct types of application, each transmitted through the central authorities. A creditor may seek recognition, or recognition and enforcement, of an existing maintenance decision. A creditor may seek enforcement of a decision made in, or already recognised in, the state where the debtor lives. Where there is no decision at all, the creditor may ask for one to be obtained in the debtor's state, including, where necessary, the establishment of parentage. A new decision may also be sought where an existing decision cannot be recognised. Modification of an existing decision is a separate application. The quality of the file largely determines the speed of the process. Türkiye has declared the supporting documents it may require, and creditors applying to Türkiye should expect to provide a certified copy of the decision, proof of service on the debtor, the debtor's identification details, civil registry or birth records, proof of continued education for children over 21, details of any indexation or interest, and a statement of arrears and payments received.
6. Free Legal Assistance and No Security for Costs
One of the Convention's most important protections for creditors concerns access to justice. The requested state must provide free legal assistance for all applications by a creditor concerning maintenance arising from a parent-child relationship towards a person under 21. The rule exists so that the cost of proceeding in another country does not prevent a child from receiving support. For other categories of maintenance, legal assistance depends on the conditions of the requested state's domestic law. The Convention further provides that no security, bond or deposit, however described, may be required to guarantee the payment of costs and expenses in proceedings under the Convention. This matters in Türkiye in particular, because Turkish procedural law ordinarily requires foreign claimants, and Turkish citizens without habitual residence in Türkiye, to deposit security for costs before bringing proceedings. In Convention maintenance proceedings, that requirement does not apply. Foreign creditors should therefore resist any request for security in such proceedings and rely expressly on the Convention.
7. Applicable Law: the 1973 Hague Convention
In Türkiye, whether maintenance is owed, and in what amount, is determined under the 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations. The Convention applies universally, even where it designates the law of a non-contracting state, and no reciprocity is required. The primary rule is that the law of the creditor's habitual residence applies. If the creditor's habitual residence changes, the law of the new habitual residence applies from the moment of the change. If the creditor cannot obtain maintenance under that law, the law of the parties' common nationality applies; if maintenance is still unavailable, the court applies its own law. Post-divorce maintenance follows a special rule: maintenance obligations between divorced spouses, and the revision of decisions on them, are governed by the law applied to the divorce. Türkiye has made a reservation excluding maintenance obligations between collateral relatives and relatives by marriage. A foreign law may be disregarded only if it is manifestly incompatible with public policy, and even where foreign law applies, the creditor's needs and the debtor's resources are taken into account in determining the amount.
8. Jurisdiction of the Turkish Courts
Where maintenance proceedings are brought in Türkiye, the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts is determined, as a general rule, by the domestic rules on territorial jurisdiction: a Turkish court that has territorial jurisdiction under domestic procedural law also has international jurisdiction. Turkish law also contains a special rule safeguarding the jurisdiction of Turkish courts in personal status matters concerning Turkish citizens where no court would otherwise be competent. Jurisdiction matters in a further sense under the 2007 Convention. The Convention does not lay down direct rules of jurisdiction, but it makes recognition in other contracting states depend on the decision having been made on one of a list of jurisdictional bases. Anyone bringing maintenance proceedings in Türkiye should therefore consider at the outset whether the resulting decision will be recognised abroad. The creditor's habitual residence in Türkiye is a sufficient basis under the Convention. Jurisdiction based solely on the parties' nationality, by contrast, may in certain situations prevent recognition.
9. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Orders Under the Convention
A maintenance decision from another 2007 Convention state is recognised and enforced in Türkiye under a regime that is markedly more favourable than Turkish general law. The Convention requires only that the decision was made on one of its recognised jurisdictional bases. These include the respondent's habitual residence in the state of origin, the respondent's submission to jurisdiction, the creditor's habitual residence in the state of origin, and certain cases based on the child's habitual residence there. Türkiye has made no reservation restricting these bases, so a decision made where the creditor lives is, in principle, capable of recognition in Türkiye. The grounds for refusal are closed: manifest incompatibility with public policy, procedural fraud, earlier pending proceedings in Türkiye, an incompatible decision, and lack of notice or of an opportunity to be heard. The merits cannot be reviewed. Türkiye has opted for the alternative procedure under Article 24, under which the application is decided after the respondent has been notified and heard. Crucially, reciprocity, which is a condition of enforcement under Turkish general law, plays no role under the Convention.
10. Non-Convention States: the General Turkish Regime
If the state that made the maintenance decision is party neither to the 2007 Convention nor to any of the other maintenance conventions binding Türkiye, enforcement in Türkiye falls under the general regime of Articles 50 to 59 of Law No. 5718. Reciprocity must then be established by treaty, by statute or by actual practice. The decision must also be final, must not concern a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish courts, must not be manifestly contrary to public policy, and must not have been rendered in breach of the respondent's right to be heard. Maintenance decisions face a particular difficulty under this regime: finality. In some legal systems, maintenance orders are not treated as final in the full sense because they remain open to variation, which can lead to argument in Turkish enforcement proceedings. Obtaining a certificate of finality under the law of the state of origin before filing is the most reliable way to forestall that argument. The general regime is explained in detail in our article on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Türkiye.
11. The Reservation on Maintenance Arrangements: a Trap for Families
In addition to court decisions, the 2007 Convention provides for the recognition and enforcement of maintenance arrangements meeting certain formal requirements, meaning written agreements formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments by a competent authority, or authenticated by, concluded before or registered with such an authority. In several legal systems, maintenance agreements concluded before a notary or an administrative authority fall within this category. Türkiye, however, has reserved the right not to recognise and enforce maintenance arrangements. The practical consequence is significant. A maintenance agreement concluded abroad only before a notary, or registered only with an administrative body, cannot be enforced directly in Türkiye under the Convention. To recover from a debtor in Türkiye on the basis of such an agreement, the agreement must have been incorporated into a court decision, or a fresh maintenance decision must be obtained. International families agreeing maintenance on separation, where one party has or may acquire links with Türkiye, should have the agreement approved by a court from the outset.
12. Modification and the Limit on Debtor Forum Shopping
Maintenance can be increased or reduced as circumstances change. Under Turkish law, maintenance may be adjusted where the parties' financial circumstances change or where equity so requires, and the contribution towards a child's maintenance may be redetermined when circumstances change. Across borders, however, the question of where modification may be sought is subject to an important restriction. Under the 2007 Convention, where a decision was made in a contracting state in which the creditor is habitually resident, the debtor cannot bring proceedings to modify it, or to obtain a new decision, in any other contracting state for as long as the creditor remains habitually resident in the state where the decision was made. The exceptions are narrow: a written jurisdiction agreement, the creditor's submission to the other state's jurisdiction, the inability or refusal of the authority in the state of origin to act, or the non-recognisability of the decision. A modification obtained in breach of this rule faces refusal of recognition elsewhere. A debtor who moves to Türkiye and asks a Turkish court to reduce a foreign order, without regard to this rule, may obtain a decision that achieves nothing.
13. Practical Issues That Delay Recovery
Many of the obstacles in cross-border maintenance cases are practical rather than legal. The first is currency. Where maintenance is fixed in a foreign currency, the applicable conversion date and the treatment of exchange differences can become contentious at the enforcement stage. The second is proof of arrears. A creditor who keeps a regular, dated record of payments received and periods unpaid is in a far stronger position at every stage. The third is locating the debtor and the debtor's assets. Central authority cooperation is valuable here, but the more information the creditor includes in the application, the faster the process moves. The fourth concerns the effect of enforcement in Türkiye. Once a foreign maintenance decision has been recognised and declared enforceable, it is executed in the same way as a Turkish judgment, giving the creditor access to the tools Turkish enforcement law provides for maintenance claims, including coercive detention of a debtor who fails to pay maintenance. Finally, translation and apostille requirements remain the most frequent reason for applications being returned, and deserve attention before filing.
14. Central Authority Route or Direct Action?
The central authority route and direct proceedings through private counsel are not mutually exclusive. The central authority route offers clear advantages: it is largely free of charge for child support, it does not require the creditor to instruct lawyers in the other country, and it gives access to assistance in locating the debtor and assets. Its limitations are equally real. Central authorities operate under heavy caseloads, files can move slowly, and a determined debtor who contests the application, conceals assets or relies on procedural objections may require more focused handling than a public authority can provide. For modest, uncontested child support claims, the central authority route is often sufficient on its own. For high-value claims, spousal maintenance with substantial assets at stake, or debtors who actively resist, combining the central authority application with representation by counsel in Türkiye tends to produce faster and more reliable results. Counsel can also address related matters that often arise in the same family, such as recognition of the divorce itself or parental responsibility issues.
15. Conclusion: Key Points for Creditors and Their Advisers
Recovering maintenance across borders to or from Türkiye is considerably more accessible than is often assumed, provided the right instrument is chosen. Türkiye is a party to the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention, in force since 1 February 2017; where the other state is also a party, the Convention should be the first port of call. Thanks to Türkiye's declarations, the Convention can apply to children under 25 in education, to spouses, to disabled children and to parents in need of care, subject to the other state's corresponding declarations. The Turkish Central Authority is the Maintenance Office of the Ministry of Justice, acting through the public prosecutors. Free legal assistance is available for child support applications concerning children under 21, and no security for costs may be required. The applicable law under the 1973 Hague Convention is, as a rule, the law of the creditor's habitual residence. Reciprocity plays no role in recognition under the Convention. Türkiye does not enforce maintenance arrangements under the Convention, so agreements concluded abroad should be embodied in a court decision. The debtor's ability to seek modification elsewhere is restricted. For high-value or contested cases, the central authority route is best combined with professional representation.
This topic is closely connected with other aspects of international family law. Our analysis of the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Türkiye, our earlier note on the government bill on Türkiye's accession to the 2007 Hague Convention, our comparative study of the concept of the child's habitual residence and our frequently asked questions on international child abduction cases in Türkiye address related matters.
For advice on the cross-border recovery of child support and spousal maintenance to or from Türkiye, the recognition and enforcement of foreign maintenance orders, applications through the Turkish Central Authority and international family law disputes, you may contact us at info@guzeloglu.legal.