An action to establish parentage allows a court to legally establish, or rebut, the legal bond between a child and a parent, so that civil registry records reflect biological reality. In practice this most often takes the form of a paternity action or a denial-of-paternity action. In both, the decisive evidence is no longer witness testimony or legal presumption, but DNA testing. This article examines the legal framework governing parentage actions under Turkish law and the decisive role of DNA testing, in light of recent Court of Cassation (Yargitay) case law.
What Is a Parentage Action?
Under the Turkish Civil Code, the legal bond between a child and the mother arises automatically at birth. The bond with the father, however, arises only through the mother’s marriage, acknowledgment, or a court judgment (Art. 282). Two case types dominate practice: a paternity action, brought to establish the legal bond between a child born out of wedlock and the biological father (Art. 301); and a denial-of-paternity action, brought to rebut the legal presumption that a child born within a marriage is the husband’s child (Art. 286). In both, the court’s aim is the same: to align the civil registry with biological reality.
The Legal Framework: Civil Code and Civil Procedure Code
The procedure for parentage actions is specifically regulated by the Turkish Civil Code (Law No. 4721) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100). Under Civil Code Art. 284, the judge must investigate the material facts ex officio and freely evaluate the evidence; the parties cannot bind the court through admission, acceptance, or waiver. The same article obliges the parties and third persons to consent to the examinations necessary to establish parentage, i.e. DNA testing, provided they pose no health risk. This obligation is made concrete by Civil Procedure Code Art. 292: everyone must submit to the taking of blood or tissue samples for the purpose of establishing parentage. Where a person refuses without just cause, the judge may order the examination to be carried out by compulsion, and third parties may not invoke the right to refuse testimony to avoid this duty.
Why DNA Evidence Is Treated as Conclusive
Because parentage and civil registry records concern public order, Turkish courts consistently hold that witness or party statements alone cannot suffice. In its decision E. 2022/683, K. 2023/832, dated 20.09.2023, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation held that in cases concerning parentage and inheritance, DNA testing is mandatory for accurate identification and to reach the material truth, and that the judge must make use of all scientific means available. Similarly, in E. 2022/762, K. 2023/883, dated 04.10.2023, the same body stated that establishing the true parent-child bond is a fundamental right and that no judgment may be rendered without a DNA examination. The 2nd Civil Chamber, in E. 2022/9814, K. 2024/542, dated 06.02.2024, upheld that a Forensic Medicine Institute (ATK) report finding a 99.99% probability of biological paternity constitutes conclusive evidence sufficient, on its own, to found the judgment.
What Happens If a Party Refuses the DNA Test?
A common question is what happens when the defendant, or another relevant person, refuses to provide a blood or tissue sample. Civil Code Art. 284(2) allows the judge to treat the expected result as having arisen against that person. However, in E. 2022/33, K. 2023/377, dated 26.04.2023, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers held that, under the principle of immediate application of procedural rules, the later-enacted Civil Procedure Code Art. 292 takes priority. Accordingly, rather than drawing a direct adverse inference, the court must first exhaust measures of compulsion – including apprehension, compelled appearance, and observation – report any official who fails to enforce these measures for possible criminal liability, and in all cases obtain a scientific report before ruling. The 2nd Civil Chamber, in E. 2021/8477, K. 2021/9689, dated 16.12.2021, confirmed this obligation and the requirement to order compulsory examination.
Rebutting the Presumption of Paternity Through DNA
A child born within a marriage is, as a rule, presumed to be the husband’s child (Civil Code Art. 302). This presumption can only be rebutted through a denial-of-paternity action, typically by means of a DNA test. In E. 2023/8165, K. 2024/3654, dated 21.05.2024, the 2nd Civil Chamber held that the defendant mother’s acceptance of the claim is not, by itself, sufficient; the action must be granted once an ATK report scientifically establishes that the plaintiff husband is not the biological father. In a related scenario, where a third party not involved in the case is found, with 99.99% probability, to be the biological father, the 2nd Civil Chamber (E. 2024/2138, K. 2024/3935, dated 28.05.2024) held that – since a child can biologically have only one father – this finding alone suffices to rebut the presumption of paternity, even without a direct DNA comparison between the husband and the child.
Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem for the Child
Because the child’s interests may conflict with those of the parents, the child must be independently represented. In E. 2022/10009, K. 2022/10923, dated 27.12.2022, the 2nd Civil Chamber held that appointing a guardian ad litem for the minor is a mandatory procedural requirement in paternity and denial-of-paternity actions, and that because the guardian is a statutory opposing party, they cannot be held personally liable for adverse litigation costs or attorney’s fees.
Are There Time Limits?
In a denial-of-paternity action, the husband must, under Civil Code Art. 289, file suit within one year of learning of the birth, of his non-paternity, or that the mother had relations with another man during the conception period. The 2nd Civil Chamber’s decisions E. 2023/8165, K. 2024/3654, dated 21.05.2024, and E. 2024/6619, K. 2024/7058, dated 09.10.2024, confirm that the start of this one-year period depends on concrete proof of when the husband actually learned the relevant fact.
The position differs for paternity actions brought by the child (or a guardian on the child’s behalf). After the Constitutional Court struck down the time limit previously prescribed for the child under Civil Code Art. 303(2), the General Assembly of Civil Chambers (E. 2022/33, K. 2023/377, dated 26.04.2023) and the 2nd Civil Chamber (E. 2022/9814, K. 2024/542, dated 06.02.2024) have expressly held that no time limit now applies to paternity actions brought by the child, which may be filed at any time.
Conclusion
Because a parentage action touches both a child’s right to identity and core family-law interests, it is treated as a matter of public order and is investigated by the court ex officio. Turkish case law consistently treats DNA testing as conclusive evidence, and treats an unjustified refusal to be tested as an obstacle to be overcome through compulsory measures rather than a simple adverse inference. At the same time, technical procedural rules – the appointment of a guardian ad litem, the correct calculation of time limits, and the proper gathering of evidence – can decide the outcome of the case. For this reason, pursuing a parentage action together with a family-law attorney is essential both to avoid the loss of rights and to build the right evidentiary and litigation strategy.
