The Issue of Age in Name Change Lawsuits

---

A. INTRODUCTION:

A name is not merely a tool used to distinguish individuals from one another; it is also a reflection of the character, personality, and traits of the person bearing it. However, before a person's character is even formed, their name is determined outside their will. The factors shaping this determination are elements such as the beliefs and cultural codes of the society into which the person is born. Therefore, a person may have multiple reasons to change their name. They might experience a conflict with the beliefs and cultural codes of their society, or they might simply wish to change their given name for purely aesthetic reasons. Undoubtedly, this desire is intertwined with the individual's will for self-actualization and, consequently, is related to Article 17 of the Constitution. Indeed, the Turkish Civil Code has also anticipated this will for change and established a regulation accordingly.

Up to this point, the portrait of the person taking shape in our minds resembles an adult seeking to change their own name out of their free will. However, legal claims or disputes in the factual world possess a much more complex structure.

Hence, the subject of this article pertains to the legal grounds in requests to change a minor's name, which is a specific manifestation of name change lawsuits.

B. THE REQUEST:

Our client's request concerns the addition of a second name to their 2-year-old child's existing name.

Accordingly, not only is there an absence of the individual's own will to change their name, but fundamentally, it is not a matter of changing the name altogether, but rather adding a new one to the existing name.

So, how should this request be addressed, and which legal instruments should be utilized?

C. DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL GROUNDS:

According to Article 27 of the Turkish Civil Code, "The change of a name may only be requested from the judge based on justified grounds." From the wording of the article, it is understood that the request for a name change is not strictly required to be put forward solely by the bearer of the name. Therefore, there is no doubt that the person holding the right of custody over the minor may also request this. However, the phrase "may be requested from the judge based on justified grounds" in the wording of the article is intriguing. Because in the legal order, no claim that is not based on justified grounds can be requested from a judge/court. Since the legislator does not act in vain, it is necessary to consider that the phrase "justified grounds" here was consciously added to the norm, to investigate what this phrase means, and to examine whether the current request can be fulfilled.

Cc.WHAT ARE THE JUSTIFIED GROUNDS FOR A NAME CHANGE?:

Since the justified grounds are not enumerated in the law, the judge hearing the case will resort to legal doctrine and judicial decisions while exercising their discretion regarding justified grounds. According to one of the decisions we can consider in this regard, a justified ground is explained as follows:

"In practice, reasons such as the name being inadequate, unsuitable, causing confusion, carrying a bad-disgusting-ridiculous-offensive-demeaning meaning, being a subject of mockery and shame, or there being a necessity arising from certain new circumstances—for instance, a person being known and recognized by a name other than the one registered in the civil registry—are accepted as justified grounds for changing a name." (General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, Merit No. 2000/18-127, Decision No. 2000/154, Date 01.03.2000)

So, according to this decision referring to practice to exemplify justified grounds, how should the addition of a second name to a minor's existing name be evaluated? In other words, which of the Court of Cassation's acceptance criteria can accommodate the request to add a new name?

Let us substantiate our own legal opinion that the concrete case bears justified grounds, without falling into the trap of the "precedent" decision—a term media sites love to use to get clicks, and which legal actors continuously try to seek out due to the legal order drifting away from predictability.

D. EVALUATION OF JUSTIFIED GROUNDS IN RELATION TO THE AGE OF THE PERSON:

When determining the justified grounds, it is first necessary to establish what kind of violation or potential for violation the current situation possesses. What consequences can arise from the discrepancy between the name a 2-year-old child bears in the registry and the name they hear from their surroundings?

There is a high probability that being called by one name within the family and by another as they take their first steps into social life will cause the child to become alienated from their own name, and that the difference between the private and public spheres will prevent them from embracing their own identity. The feature of the concept of a name mentioned in the introduction encompasses not only a person's right to determine their own name but also the right to eliminate the discrepancy between the name by which the person is addressed and their registered name. Therefore, if a 2-year-old child named A is addressed as A B, it must be accepted that there are justified grounds for adding the name B to the civil registry.

Indeed (should there be a need to support this interpretation with a judicial decision), the decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Merit No. 1993/9708, Decision No. 1993/10832, Date 13.10.1993) is also in this direction:

"A person being called by a name other than the one registered in the civil registry and being known by the name they are called constitutes a justified ground—formerly referred to as a valid reason ('muhik sebep')—as defined in Article 27/1 of the Turkish Civil Code."

E. INTERIM CONCLUSION:

Thus, in name change lawsuits, there is no obstacle posed by the person being a minor or by the name being changed through the addition of another name. The essential element is the convergence of the name the person is called by and the name they bear in the registry.

F. FINAL CONCLUSION:

The attorney, in realizing the freedom to seek legal remedies, establishes the legal foundation for a claim and ensures its procedural establishment based on a process of logical, methodological, and philosophical evaluation applied to each concrete case.

It is exactly this activity of interpretation and evaluation that brings a right into existence and ensures its establishment.

Sincerely,

Atty. Deniz HELVACI