
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals found the personal relationship between the grandchild and the grandparents insufficient and granted the right to live-in meetings.
In a case heard in Eskişehir, the Supreme Court found the personal relationship duration of grandparents with their grandchildren insufficient and decided that they should stay together for longer periods of time during live-in visits and holidays for the best interest of the child.
AI-generated summary
Grandparents living in Eskişehir filed a lawsuit in family court to be able to meet their grandchildren, who were born in 2017. The parties appealed the limited meeting times determined by the local court.
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals made a remarkable decision regarding grandmothers and grandfathers establishing personal relationships with their grandchildren. In the case filed in Eskişehir, the Supreme Court, which found the meeting times determined by the family court to be insufficient, paved the way for grandmothers and grandfathers to meet with their grandchildren in bed at certain periods.
In its decision, the Supreme Court drew attention to the importance of experiencing the love of the grandchildren, eliminating the longing and strengthening the child's family ties.
The grandmother and grandfather living in Eskişehir filed a lawsuit against their ex-daughter-in-law at the Eskişehir 8th Family Court in order to establish a personal relationship with their grandchildren born in 2017.
Evaluating the case, the court decided that the grandmother and grandfather should meet with their grandchildren on the first weekend of each month, between 10.00 and 17.30 on Saturdays and Sundays.
The court also decided to hold meetings between the same hours on the second day of religious holidays and the last weekend of the semester break.
However, the decision did not please the parties.
The 1st Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice, which examined the objections to the local court's decision, rejected the appeal applications on the merits.
Thereupon, the grandmother and grandfather appealed the decision, stating that the time they could spend with their grandchildren was insufficient. The child's mother objected to the entire decision.
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which examined the file, rejected the mother's objections and found the grandmother and grandfather's application regarding meeting times justified.
The Supreme Court ruled that the determined periods were not sufficient to develop the bonds of love and communication between the grandparents and the grandchildren.
In the Supreme Court decision, it was emphasized that the relationship established with family elders will contribute to the development of the child and the strengthening of kinship ties.
The following statements were included in the decision:
"The personal relationship periods determined in the decision are not sufficient to establish the love and communication between the grandfather and the grandchild. The personal relationship to be established between the plaintiffs and the grandchild will enable the plaintiffs to enjoy the love of the grandchild and satisfy their longing, and for the minor to grow and develop in an environment of love, as well as strengthen the ties of kinship."
Considering the best interests of the child, the Supreme Court decided that grandparents should establish longer-term personal relationships with their grandchildren.
Accordingly, grandmother and grandfather will be able to meet with their grandchildren on the first weekend of each month, from 10:00 on Saturday to 17:30 on Sunday.
Meetings can be held between 10.00-17.30 on the second day of religious holidays and the Saturday of the last week of the semester break.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the child should stay with his grandmother and grandfather every year from 1 August 10:00 to 7 August 17:30.
The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals decided that there was no need for a retrial.
The Supreme Court, which corrected the local court's decision to include inpatient meeting periods, unanimously approved the decision.

The Constitutional Court opened the way for a retrial by deciding that the right of Eğitim-Sen member Cafer Sevgül, who received an administrative fine for attending a press conference held in Tunceli in 2016, was violated.

In the second hearing of the case where 15 students who protested Nureddin Yıldız's invitation to Boğaziçi University were tried, 7 police officers filed a complaint against the students.

In the App Store case between Apple and Epic Games, the US Supreme Court announced the oral hearing date as January 11, 2027. The review does not cover all of the App Store's rules and focuses on a single legal question.

In Russia, the Taganskiy District Court fined Google 3.8 million rubles and Telegram 14.6 million rubles for not removing banned content.
The Taganskiy District Court in Moscow decided to impose a fine of 14.6 million rubles on Telegram and 3.8 million rubles on Google for not removing banned content.

US citizens who consult artificial intelligence chatbots to avoid paying attorney fees in divorce and custody cases face major financial and legal damages in the courts due to fake precedent decisions and false petitions.