Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004    Full Text (PDF)

The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law

Şirin Aydıncık Midyat

As in many legal systems, the establishment of a legal paternal relationship between a father and a child under TurkishSwiss law is not directly based on genetic lineage. Turkish law, however, generally allows the establishment of a legal paternal relationship between a genetic father and a child. Adoption aside, Turkish law relies on three process to establish legal paternity, marriage with the mother, recognition, and court decision. Under Turkish law a child can only have legal paternity with one male thus, where a child has an existing legal paternity with a non-genetic father it must be annulled first in order to establish a legal paternity between the child and the genetic father. This study looks firstly at the establishment of a legal paternal relationship between a child and a father under Turkish law and the role of being a genetic father in this respect. In the following part, how to challenge a paternal relationship that has been previously established between a child and a non-genetic father is discussed. In this context, the right of the genetic father to challenge the presumption of the husband’s paternity under Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 is discussed in detail (TCC art. 291/I). Finally, it is contemplated whether a genetic father has a right to determine his paternity without legal consequences within the scope of his personal rights and whether he can establish a personal relationship with a child within the scope of TCC art. 325 in the absence of legal paternity. The position of genetic father under Turkish paternity law is examined in general by taking into account the developments in other countries, in particular under Swiss and German laws. 

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004    Full Text (PDF)

Genetik Babanın Türk Soybağı Hukukundaki Yeri

Şirin Aydıncık Midyat

Pek çok hukuk düzeninde olduğu gibi Türk-İsviçre hukukunda da baba ile çocuk arasındaki hukuki soybağının kurulması doğrudan genetik soybağına dayandırılmamıştır. Bununla birlikte Türk hukuku kural olarak genetik baba ile çocuk arasında hukuki soybağı ilişkisinin kurulmasına imkan tanımaktadır. Evlat edinme bir kenara bırakılacak olursa, baba ile çocuk arasındaki hukuki soybağının kurulması bakımından Türk hukukunda ana ile evlilik, tanıma ve babalık davası yolları öngörülmüştür. Ancak bizim hukukumuzda çocuğun sadece tek bir erkekle hukuki soybağı tesis edilebileceğinden, önceden hukuken başka bir erkekle soybağının bulunması durumunda çocuk ile genetik babası arasında hukuki soybağının kurulabilmesi için öncelikle mevcut hukuki soybağı ilişkisinin sonlandırılması gerekecektir. Bu çalışmada öncelikle Türk hukukunda çocukla babası arasında hukuki soybağı ilişkisinin kurulması ve bu bakımdan genetik baba olmanın rolü ele alınmış, devamında önceden çocukla genetik baba dışında başka bir erkekle kurulmuş olan bir hukuki soybağı ilişkisi söz konusuysa bunu sonlandırmanın yolları ve özellikle genetik babanın var olan hukuki soybağını sonlandırmaya ne şekilde etki edebileceği konuları üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu kapsamda özellikle 4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu’nda yer alan genetik babanın soybağının reddi davası açma hakkı ayrıntılı olarak ele alınmıştır (MK 291/I). Son olarak genetik babanın soybağı davaları dışında kişilik hakkı kapsamında herhangi hukuki bir sonucu olmaksızın babalığının tespitine yönelik bir hakkı bulunup bulunmadığı ve hukuki soybağı mevcut olmamasına rağmen MK 325 hükmü çerçevesinde çocukla kişisel ilişki kurup kuramayacağı konusu ele alınmıştır. Bu çalışmada genel olarak genetik babanın Türk soybağı hukukundaki yeri konusu özellikle İsviçre ve Alman hukukları başta olmak üzere diğer ülkelerdeki gelişmeler de dikkate alınarak incelenmiştir. 


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


The relationship between genetic, social and legal paternity in family law is worth examining. As surrogacy and egg donation are not accepted in our law the distinction between genetic and legal maternity is not a feature in the establishment of parentage between mother and child. However, for historical reasons, the relationship between father and child, has always been controversial. As in many jurisdictions, the establishment of legal paternity between father and child under Turkish-Swiss law is not directly based on genetic ancestry. 

As the determination of genetic paternity was not possible when the Civil Code was initially adopted in Turkey, it was necessary to distinguish between genetic ancestry and legal paternity based on external factors. Although with today’s scientific advances, especially developments in DNA analysis techniques, the determination of genetic paternity has become very easy. Nevertheless, under Turkish law, as in many countries, genetic paternity alone is not enough to establish legal parentage, since presumptions accepted in law, for a number of reasons, are preserved. In particular the presumption of a husband’s paternity.

As a result, within the framework of legal regulations, there are many situations where legal paternity is separated from genetic ancestry in the establishment of the paternal relationship between father and child. This separation is primarily due to the presumption that the husband to whom the mother was married at the time of birth is legally regarded as the father of a child, even if there is no genetic ancestry (TCC art. 285). As long as paternity, based on this legal presumption is not annulled the husband in the marriage remains the legal father, although he may not be the genetic father. It is accepted that in order to protect family unity the legislator has given priority to the moral/social paternal relationship over genetic ancestry.

Legal paternity and genetic ancestry are also separated when establishing legal paternity through recognition. Therefore, it is possible to establish legal paternity between a child and a father through recognition without a genetic relationship to the child. However, if the recognition is challenged before the courts and it is proven that the recognizing person is not the genetic father, the legally established paternity can be annulled. Unless such recognition is annulled, the recognizing person is legally registered as the father even if he may not be the genetic father. In addition, in establishing a legal paternal relationship through court decision, the lawmaker has deemed it sufficient that the probability of the defendant being a genetic father is equal to another man (TCC art. 302/III)1 . In all these cases, there may be differences between genetic ancestry and legal paternity.

Generally Turkish law allows a legal paternal relationship between the child and the genetic father to be established by marrying the mother, recognizing the child and/or by a court declaration. However, in cases where the establishment of such a legal paternal relationship is prevented despite the request of the genetic father, for example due to the fact that the child has a legal paternity with another male, the issue of establishing the legal paternity of the genetic father with the child is problematic under our law, as it is in many legal systems. In such cases, since the child can only establish a legal paternity with one single male, the existing legal paternal relationship must be annulled first in order to establish a legal paternity between the child and his genetic father.

In this respect, the role of the genetic father should also be examined. Under Turkish law, it is generally accepted that the genetic father has the right to file a challenge of recognition (TCC art. 298). In addition to this, the genetic father is also granted the right to challenge the presumption of husband’s paternity. The Turkish legislator, following the modern trend, has given the genetic father the right to file a lawsuit for annulment of the paternity of the husband under certain conditions (TCC art. 291/I). There is no such regulation in Switzerland and thus, the Turkish legislator’s granting of such a right has been extremely innovative in terms of Turkish-Swiss law. Innovative because under Turkish-Swiss law, a third party’s claim that he is the father of a child born in wedlock was considered a violation of the personal rights of the mother and husband. However, it has been concluded that this newly introduced provision does not adequately protect the genetic father’s right to challenge legal paternity and also does not take into account the interests of the child and the family. For this reason, it needs to be revised.


PDF View

References

  • Acabey MB, Soybağı-Kurulması, Genel Olarak Sonuçları, Özellikle Evlilik Dışı Doğan Çocukların Mirasçılığı (Güncel Hukuk 2002). google scholar
  • Aebi-Müller RE, “Persönlichkeitsschutz und Genetik - Einige Gedanken zu einem aktüellen Thema, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Abstammungsrechts”, in Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins (ZBJV 144/2008), 82-125. google scholar
  • Aebi-Müller RE, “Die privatrechtliche Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts im Jahr 2009 -Familienrecht - Veröffentlicht in Band 135 und ausgewahlte im Internet publizierte Urteile -Kindesrecht”, in Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins (ZBJV 146/2010), 910-920. google scholar
  • Aebi-Müller RE, “Ein neues Familienrecht für die Schweiz? Ein kritischer Blick auf das Reformprojekt.”, in Die Praxis des Familienrechts (FamPra.ch 2014), 818-835. google scholar
  • Aebi-Müller RE, “Die privatrechtliche Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts im Jahr 2018”, in Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins (ZBJV 155/2019), 261-269. google scholar
  • Akbıyık C, “Anayasa Mahkemesinin Soybağı Hukuku Alanındaki Kararlarının Toplu Bir Değerlendirmesi”, (2012) 11(1), Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 203-224. google scholar
  • Akıntürk T ve Ateş D, Türk Medeni Hukuku, İkinci Cilt, Aile Hukuku, (22. Bası, Beta 2020). google scholar
  • Aksoy Dursun S, “Soybağı Davalarındaki Hak Düşürücü Sürelere İlişkin Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi”, (2018) 76(2), İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 393-416. [Süreler] google scholar
  • Aksoy Dursun S, “Soybağının Belirlenmesi Bakımından MK m. 284 ve HMK m. 292’nin Değerlendirilmesi”, (2012), 8(95-96), Kazancı Hakemli Hukuk Dergisi, 109-124. [Soybağı] google scholar
  • Baygın C, Soybağı Hukuku, (1. Bası, On İki Levha 2010). google scholar
  • Baysal B, “Çocuğun Kökenini Öğrenme Hakkı”, Prof. Dr. Rona Serozan’a Armağan Cilt I, (1. Bası, On İki Levha, 2010), 493-533. google scholar
  • Bertschi N, Leihmutterschaft Theorie, Praxis und rechtliche Perspektiven in der Schweiz, den USA und Indien, FamPra.ch - Schriftenreihe zum Familienrecht Band/Nr. 19, (Stâmpfli 2014). google scholar
  • Büchler A ve Schmucki A, “Das Abstammungsrecht in rechtsvergleichender Sicht (2/2)”, in Die Praxis des Familienrechts, (FamPra.ch 2020), 24-58. google scholar
  • Büchler A ve Ryser N, “Das Recht des Kindes auf Kenntnis seiner Abstammung”, Die Praxis des Familienrechts, (FamPra.ch 2009), 1-22. google scholar
  • Büchler A, “Das Abstammungsrecht in rechtsvergleichender Sicht”, Die Praxis des Familienrechts (FamPra.ch 2005), 437-470. google scholar
  • Büchler A, “Sag mir, wer die Eltern sind... Konzeptionen rechtlicher Elternschaft im Spannungsfeld genetischer Gewissheit und sozialer Geborgenheit”, Aktuelle Juristische Praxis (AJP 2004), 1175-1185. google scholar
  • Cottier M ve Wyttenbach J, “Die Rechtsprechung des Europâischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte zu Art. 8 EMRK und ihr Einfluss auf die Schweiz: ausgewâhlte jüngere Entwicklungen im Bereich des Familienrechts”, Die Praxis des Familienrechts (FamPra.ch 2016), 75-110. google scholar
  • Cottier M ve Crevoisier C, “Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz (FMedG) Art. 27 Auskunft”, in Andrea Büchler ve Bernhard Rütsche (eds), SHK - Stampflis Handkommentar (Stâmpfli 2020), 608-628. google scholar
  • Çilenti Konuralp A, “Anne Yönünden Soybağı Tespit Edilemeyen Çocuğun Baba Yönünden Soybağının Kurulması Sorunu”, (2020) 5(1), Çankaya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2071-2090. google scholar
  • Demirbaş F, “Baba ile Çocuk Arasındaki Soybağına İlişkin Davalarda Davacı Olabilecek Kişiler”, (2018) XXII(3), Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 3-36. google scholar
  • Dönmez Z, “Kökenin Tespiti Talebinin Temel Haklarla İlişkisine Yönelik Bir Değerlendirme” (2018) 9(36) Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 171-196. google scholar
  • Dural M, Öğüz T ve Gümüş MA, Türk Özel Hukuku Cilt III, Aile Hukuku, (15. Bası, Filiz 2020). google scholar
  • Erlüle F, “Babalık Karinesi”, Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Hatemi’ye Armağan I. Cilt (1. Bası, Vedat 2009), 685-696. google scholar
  • Feyzioğlu NF, Aile Hukuku, (Filiz 1986). google scholar
  • Geiser T, “Kind und Recht - von der sozialen zur genetischen Vaterschaft?”, Die Praxis des Familienrechts FamPra.ch 2009, 41-58. google scholar
  • Genç Arıdemir A, “Tanıma Yolu ile Kurulan Soybağı”, Prof. Dr. Zahit İmre’ye Armağan, (DER Yayınevi 2009) 1-37. google scholar
  • Gümüş MA, “Koca, Çocuk ve Ergin Olmayan Çocuğa Atanan Kayyım Dışındaki ‘Diğer İlgililer’ [Kocanın Ana ve Babası ile Altsoyunun, Baba Olduğunu İddia Eden Kişinin, Annenin (!)] Soybağının Reddi Davasını Açma Hakkı (TMK m.291/1, III)”, in Prof. Dr. Mustafa Dural’a Armağan (Filiz 2013) 568-578. (Soybağının Reddi). google scholar
  • Gümüş MA, Türk Medeni Hukukunda Kayyımlık (Vedat 2006). (Kayyımlık). google scholar
  • Hatemi H, Aile Hukuku, (8. Bası, On İki Levha 2020). google scholar
  • Hausheer H, Geiser T veAebi-Müller RE., Das Familienrecht des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches, (6. Aufl, Stampfli, 2018). google scholar
  • Hegnauer C, Berner Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Band II, Das Familienrecht, 2. Abteilung, Die Verwandtschaft, 1. Teilband, Die Entstehung des Kindesverhaltnisses, Art. 252-269c ZGB, (4. Aufl, Stampfli 1984). google scholar
  • Hegnauer C, Berner Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Band II, Das Familienrecht, 2. Abteilung, Die Verwandtschaft, 2. Teilband, Die Wirkungen des Kindesverhaltnisses, 1. Unterteilband, Die Gemeinschaft der Eltern und Kinder, Kommentar zu Art. 270-275 (mit Supplement); Die Unterhaltspflicht der Eltern, Kommentar zu Art. 276-295 ZGB (Stampfli 1997). google scholar
  • Hegnauer C, “Anfechtung der Anerkennung der Vaterschaft und Feststellung der Nichtvaterschaft”, Zeitschrift für Vormundschaftswesen (ZVW 2002), 49-51. google scholar
  • Helms T, “Die Stellung des potenziellen biologischen Vaters im Abstammungsrecht”, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht (FamRZ 2010), 1-8. google scholar
  • Helvacı İ, Gerekçeli-Karşılaştırmalı- İçtihatlı- Notlu Türk Medeni Kanunu, Cilt II, Aile Hukuku, (1. Bası, On İki Levha 2013). google scholar
  • Hennemann H, Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 10, Familienrecht II, §§ 1589-1921, SGB VIII, (8. Aufl, Beck, 2020). google scholar
  • Hrubesch-Millauer S ve Fuhrer O, “Rechtsprechungspanorama Einleitungsartikel und Personenrecht, Ausgewahlte Entscheide des Bundesgerichts aus dem Jahr 2017”, in Arnold F. Rusch (ed) Aktuelle juristische Praxis, (AJP 2018), 634-652. google scholar
  • Jungo A, “Ein ZGB ohne Ehe?”, in Quid? Fribourg law review, (QFLR SE/17), 19-20. google scholar
  • Kılıçoğlu E, “Gizli Babalık Testlerinin Soybağının Reddi Davasına Etkileri ve Bu Bağlamda Alman Hukukunda “Hukuki Babanın Biyolojik Babalığının Açıklığa Kavuşturulması Talebi”nin Tanınması -Yargılama Hukuku Perspektifinden Bir Bakış-” (2010) 16(3-4), Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 279-307. google scholar
  • Kırkbeşoğlu N, “28.02.2008 Tarihli İsviçre Federal Mahkemesi Kararının (BGE 134 III 241) Çevirisi ve Kökenini Öğrenme Hakkı ile İlgili Genel Bir Değerlendirme”, (2016) 7(24), Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 199-225. google scholar
  • Köprülü B ve Kaneti S, Aile Hukuku, (2. Bası, Filiz 1989). google scholar
  • Meier P ve Haberli T, “Übersicht zur Rechtsprechung im Kindes- und Vormundschaftsrecht (November 2011 bis Februar 2012)”, in ZKE 2012, 128-156. google scholar
  • Namlı M, Türk ve Fransız Medeni Usul Hukuku’nda Yargılamanın Yenilenmesi, (1. Bası, Beta 2014). google scholar
  • Nomer NN, “Suni Döllenme Dolayısıyla Ortaya Çıkabilecek Nesep Problemleri”, Prof. Dr. M. Kemal Oğuzman’ın Anısına Armağan, (1. Bası, Beta 2000) 545-594. google scholar
  • Oğuzman K ve Dural M, Aile Hukuku, (2. Bası, Filiz 1998). google scholar
  • Öğüz T, “Türk Medeni Kanunu’nun Soybağına İlişkin Hükümleri Hakkında Değerlendirme”, Prof. Dr. Rona Serozan’a Armağan, Cilt II, (1. Bası, On İki Levha 2010) 1415-1424. (Soybağı) google scholar
  • Öğüz T, “Anayasa Mahkemesinin Türk Medeni Kanunu’nun Soybağına İlişkin İptal Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi”, in Prof. Dr. Tufan Öğüz ve Prof. Dr. İlhan Helvacı (eds) Anayasa Mahkemesinin Medeni Hukuka İlişkin Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi Sempozyumu (21 Mayıs 2012), (1. Bası, On İki Levha 2013), 201-210. (Anayasa Mahkemesi) google scholar
  • Öz T, “Soybağının Reddi Davasında İspat ve Süreler”, in Prof. Dr. Baki İlkay Engin (ed) Medeni Hukuk Alanındaki Güncel Yargıtay Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi Sempozyumları, C. II, Aile Hukuku (20 Nisan 2017), (1. Bası, On İki Levha 2019), 319-345. google scholar
  • Öztan B, Aile Hukuku, (6. Bası, Turhan 2015). google scholar
  • Pfaffinger M, “Vaterschaft auf dem Prüfstand. Das Recht des Ehemannes auf Kenntnis der eigenen Vaterschaft im Zeitalter der Genetik”, Die Praxis des Familienrechts, (FamPra.ch 2014), 604-615. google scholar
  • Reich J, Personen- und Familienrecht, Partnerschaftsgesetz Art. 1-456 ZGB - PartG, in Breitschmid, Peter; Jungo, Alexandra (eds) CHK -, Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht (3. Aufl, Schulthess 2016). google scholar
  • Rusch M, Rechtliche Elternschaft - Rechtsvergleich und Reformvorschlag für die Schweiz, FamPra. ch - Schriftenreihe zum Familienrecht Band/Nr. 13, (1. Aufl, Stampfli 2009). google scholar
  • Schwenzer I ve Cottier M, Zweite Abteilung: Die Verwandtschaft, Siebenter Titel: Die Entstehung des Kindesverhaltnisses in Prof. Thomas Geiser ve Christiana Fountoulakis (eds) Basler Kommentar Zivilgesetzbuch I, Art. 1-456 ZGB, (6. Aufl, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2018). google scholar
  • Schwenzer I, “Familienrecht und gesellschaftliche Veranderungen”, Die Praxis des Familienrechts (FamPra.ch 2014), 966-1008. google scholar
  • Schwenzer I, “Tensions between Legal, Biological and Social Conceptions of Parentage”, vol 11.3 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW (December 2007), <http://www.ejcl. org/113/article113-6.pdf>. google scholar
  • Serozan R, Çocuk Hukuku, (2. Bası, Vedat 2005). google scholar
  • Serozan R, “Soybağı Hukuku Üzerine Çeşitlemeler”, Prof. Dr. Bilge Öztan’a Armağan, (1. Bası, Turhan 2008), 759-777. (Soybağı) google scholar
  • Serozan R, “Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Yeni Medeni Kanun Kurallarına İlişkin Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi”, in Prof. Dr. Tufan Öğüz ve Prof. Dr. İlhan Helvacı (eds) Anayasa Mahkemesinin Medeni Hukuka İlişkin Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi Sempozyumu (21 Mayıs 2012), (1. Bası, On İki Levha 2013), 137-165. (Anayasa) google scholar
  • Sonat KA, “Soybağının Tespiti Amacıyla İsteğe Dayalı Olarak Yapılan Gen İncelemeleri”, (2013), 19(3) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi (MÜHF - HAD), 323-377. google scholar
  • Şıpka Ş ve Genç Arıdemir A, “4721 Sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu’na Göre Soybağının Kurulması ve Hükümleri” (2003) 2(1), Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 149-185. google scholar
  • Tekinay SS, Türk Aile Hukuku (7. Bası, Filiz 1990). google scholar
  • Tosun Y ve Baş E, “Soybağının Reddi Davasında ve Babalık Davasında Sürelere İlişkin Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi”, (2014) 9(123), Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 99-117. google scholar
  • Tuor P, Schnyder B, Schmid J ve Jungo A, Das Schweizerische Zivilgesetzbuch, (14. Aufl, Schulthess, 2015). (Schmid ve Jungo). google scholar
  • Turan-Başara G, “Çocuğun Biyolojik Ana- Babasını Öğrenme Hakkı”, Evrensel Hukuk İlkeleri Işığında Türk Medeni Hukukunda Değişimler Sempozyumu, 10-11 Haziran 2016, (Seçkin 2016), 265- 283. google scholar
  • Wellenhofer M, Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 10, Familienrecht II, §§ 1589-1921, SGB VIII, (8. Aufl, Beck 2020). google scholar
  • Wellenhofer M, “Das neue Gesetz zur Klarung der Vaterschaft unabhangig vom Anfechtungsverfahren”, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift NJW 2008, 1185-1189. google scholar
  • Wiesner-Berg S, ““Babyklappe” und “anonyme Geburt”: - Rechtskonflikte zwischen Mutter und Kind?” Die Praxis des Familienrechts (FamPra.ch 2010), 521-545. google scholar
  • Wyttenbach J ve Grohsmann I, “Welche Vater für das Kind? Der Europaische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte und die Vielfalt von Elternschaft”, Aktuelle Juristische Praxis, (AJP 2014), 149-166. google scholar
  • Yılmaz C, “Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Çocukla Kişisel İlişki Kurulması”, (2015) 35(1) Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 103-141. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Aydıncık Midyat, Ş. (2022). The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law. Istanbul Law Review, 80(2), 455-506. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004


AMA

Aydıncık Midyat Ş. The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law. Istanbul Law Review. 2022;80(2):455-506. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004


ABNT

Aydıncık Midyat, Ş. The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 80, n. 2, p. 455-506, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Aydıncık Midyat, Şirin,. 2022. “The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law.” Istanbul Law Review 80, no. 2: 455-506. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004


Chicago: Humanities Style

Aydıncık Midyat, Şirin,. The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law.” Istanbul Law Review 80, no. 2 (Dec. 2022): 455-506. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004


Harvard: Australian Style

Aydıncık Midyat, Ş 2022, 'The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 455-506, viewed 7 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Aydıncık Midyat, Ş. (2022) ‘The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law’, Istanbul Law Review, 80(2), pp. 455-506. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004 (7 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Aydıncık Midyat, Şirin,. The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 80, no. 2, 2022, pp. 455-506. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004


Vancouver

Aydıncık Midyat Ş. The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 7 Dec. 2022 [cited 7 Dec. 2022];80(2):455-506. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004


ISNAD

Aydıncık Midyat, Şirin. The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law”. Istanbul Law Review 80/2 (Dec. 2022): 455-506. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0004



TIMELINE


Submitted30.09.2021
Accepted30.05.2022
Published Online22.07.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.