On this page
State Care Agency: decisions, services and follow-through
The LEPL Agency for State Care and Assistance for the (Statutory) Victims of Human Trafficking is the respondent named in the administrative claim reviewed for this reporting. The claimant asks the court to examine its actions and omissions across family contact, assessments, education, medical care and the response to oversight. [1] [2]
We seek an account of what the Agency knew, what its workers were authorised to do and what they actually delivered. Our demands include independent review of disputed assessments, a named person responsible for unresolved needs and follow-up when a court corrects an Agency decision.
Tbilisi City Court: review the conduct and decide the present need
The claim is addressed to Tbilisi City Court’s Administrative Cases Panel and seeks symbolic damages for the child. It separately describes family proceedings associated with Judge Giorgi Maisuradze and corrective decisions associated with Judges Khatuna Jinoria and Manuchar Tsatsua. The claim distinguishes the handling of the family proceedings from the court decisions that corrected Agency action. [1]
We seek prompt decisions on urgent child-related requests, proper examination of expert and language evidence, and clear reasons for accepting or rejecting the Agency’s position. A court’s scrutiny should identify the disputed act or omission rather than treating the Agency’s status as an answer.
Tbilisi Court of Appeals: a hearing the child can understand
The lawsuit describes questioning at the Tbilisi Court of Appeals in a parent’s presence, with interruptions and without interpretation into the child’s native language. It identifies a hearing recording as evidence. The reporting attributes that account to the claim; the full recording is needed to establish the sequence and wording of the exchange. [1] [5]
The same lawsuit credits appellate review with correcting other decisions. We seek the practical standards that make review effective: suitable interpretation before questioning, an opportunity to speak without interference and prompt reconsideration when the foundation for a restriction has changed.
Supreme Court of Georgia: errors must remain capable of correction
The national court is the Supreme Court of Georgia. The claim says an earlier return dispute passed through all three Georgian court instances before later proceedings challenged its evidential basis. The account raises questions about how material new evidence reaches a court after an earlier decision has become final. [1] [4]
We seek clear, accessible reasoning on the available review procedure and timely treatment of evidence that may affect a child’s protection. The importance of finality should be examined together with the lawful mechanisms for correcting a serious error and addressing present needs.
Swiss return proceedings: the return is not the care plan
The claim reports Swiss proceedings that required the child’s return to Georgia. Under Article 19 of the 1980 Hague Convention, a return decision is not a determination of the merits of custody. [1] [6]
Our focus is the work surrounding a return: assessment of risk before travel, continuity of schooling and medical care, safe family contact and an identified service responsible after arrival. A successful international procedure should lead into protection on the ground.
Public Defender and child representation: a warning must reach action
The claim describes a Public Defender intervention over professional support, interpretation and the child’s ability to express a view. It also records an appointed child lawyer’s concern about repeated changes of home and school. The claimant’s criticism is that these warnings did not produce an adequate protective response. [1]
We seek a recorded decision on each substantive warning: accepted and acted on, rejected with reasons, or referred to an identified body with follow-up. The child’s representative should be able to pursue that response. Effective participation requires more than a name beside “representative” in the file. [7]
Named professionals and the conduct under examination
The lawsuit attributes to Nino Iobashvili failures in the response to a medical referral and in the handling of a court-authorised supervised meeting. Our articles identify those alleged acts and the evidence the claimant invokes. [1]
An earlier case review reproduces an assessment attributed to Shorena Maisuradze describing parent-provided interpretation and a later Google check. The professional questions concern competence, neutrality, the interview record and the reliability of the resulting opinion. We seek answers through the underlying records and independent professional review. [8]
What institutions can do now
Our proposals are practical: follow unresolved referrals to completion; correct records after annulled decisions; re-examine work affected by a conflict; record the child’s words accurately; and make one body responsible for coordinating the next protective step. We also seek changes in funding and procedure where existing powers cannot deliver an essential service. [3]
We invite institutions and professionals to engage with these proposals and provide the records needed to assess their response. The purpose is a public service that learns from a challenged decision and treats the next child better.
Legal sources & references
- Anonymised administrative claim reviewed by Child Rights Georgia.
- HCCH authority directory — official designation of the State Care Agency
- Law of Georgia on Social Work — Articles 10, 15–20, 27–30; Georgian consolidated text
- Supreme Court of Georgia — official website
- Tbilisi Court of Appeals — official website
- 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention — Articles 7, 19 and 21
- European Court of Human Rights Registry — the child’s right to be heard in family proceedings
- Confidential case review concerning assessments and institutional responses.