Maintenance (Alimony) and Child Custody in Mixed Marriages: Applicable Law and Conflicts of Jurisdiction

In mixed marriages—where spouses have different nationalities, the family’s habitual residence changes across borders, or the marital life is closely connected to more than one state—the most sensitive part of a divorce file is often maintenance (alimony) and child custody. This is because both issues frequently trigger, at the same time, questions of applicable law (which country’s substantive rules will govern) and conflicts of jurisdiction (which country’s courts are entitled to hear and decide the dispute). An incorrect jurisdictional setup or an inaccurate applicable-law analysis may lead to parallel proceedings, increased cost and delay, or a decision that becomes difficult to recognize or enforce abroad.

1) Applicable law: Are maintenance and custody always governed by the same law?

Under the Turkish private international law framework, the first step is the proper legal characterization of the claim: is the request a divorce ancillary (an accessory consequence of divorce), or an autonomous claim that can be pursued independently? For the divorce itself (grounds and effects), the general conflict-of-laws approach is structured around connecting factors such as the spouses’ common nationality, failing that their common habitual residence, and failing that the application of Turkish law. In practice, this ordering is decisive in mixed marriages and can lead to markedly different outcomes.

Maintenance (alimony) requires an additional layer of analysis because the term covers different types of support:

• Spousal maintenance (e.g., post-divorce support) is commonly treated as an ancillary consequence of divorce and, in many configurations, is strongly influenced by the law governing divorce and its effects.
• Child maintenance (support for the child) may, depending on the characterization and the relevant connecting factors, be assessed through a rule that gives particular weight to the maintenance creditor’s habitual residence (often the child). This is a classic point where the applicable law can “split”: one law for divorce, another for child-related financial support.

A similar sensitivity exists in child custody. Although custody is often pleaded as a divorce-related consequence, contemporary cross-border practice places strong emphasis on the child’s actual life situation and the concept of habitual residence. Therefore, in mixed marriages, an applicable-law discussion on custody typically turns on where the child genuinely lives, attends school, and is socially integrated, who provides day-to-day care, and how stable the child’s environment is. As a result, the applicable-law map in mixed marriages is not automatically a “single-law” solution; depending on the connecting factors, a more fragmented picture may emerge.

2) Conflicts of jurisdiction: Which country’s courts will decide?

Conflicts of jurisdiction become especially visible in two recurring scenarios: (i) one spouse lives in Türkiye while the other lives abroad, and/or (ii) the child’s habitual residence is in one country but the divorce is filed in another. Turkish courts’ international jurisdiction is generally assessed through the Turkish PIL approach that, as a rule, refers back to domestic venue and jurisdiction rules. In practice, for divorce and its ancillary matters, domestic connecting points such as the spouses’ residence-based criteria are often used to anchor proceedings in Türkiye.

However, when it comes to custody, contact/visitation, and measures aimed at the child’s protection, cross-border practice typically follows a child-centered logic in which the child’s habitual residence plays a central role. The practical consequence is this: in mixed marriages, custody jurisdiction cannot always be reduced to the assumption that “the divorce court decides everything.” In certain fact patterns, divorce litigation may proceed in Türkiye while custody-related protective measures, interim arrangements, or related proceedings may be pursued where the child is habitually resident, creating an acute jurisdictional conflict risk.

3) Typical risk areas and practical consequences

• Parallel proceedings: Divorce in one country, maintenance or custody proceedings in another, resulting in procedural fragmentation and strategic uncertainty.
• Reduced cross-border effectiveness: If jurisdiction is not properly established, the maintenance/custody decision may be harder to recognize or to make effective in the other country.
• Urgency and interim measures: In child-related emergencies (relocation, handover disputes, obstruction of contact), interim measures may intensify jurisdiction conflicts and require swift procedural decisions.

In short, in mixed marriages, success in maintenance (alimony) and child custody disputes depends on building the applicable law and conflicts of jurisdiction roadmap at the outset. Without a structured assessment of the concrete connecting factors—nationality, habitual residence, actual caregiving arrangements, residence patterns, and urgency—parties risk avoidable procedural challenges and outcomes that are difficult to operationalize across borders.