Listening without pressure, suitable communication and an explanation of the decision.
Children should be able to explain their experience without being asked to carry the adult dispute. We press for a suitable setting, language support where needed, attention to context and feedback after a decision.
Our work examines how CRC Article 12 and Child Rights Code Article 78 are put into practice. Participation should inform a decision, not merely decorate the file. [1] [2]
Research & practiceAn interview should help a child describe an experience—not teach a child the answer. Protecting that distinction is a professional responsibility.
Read the article
Case analysisA later report can change a child’s life. It should show the new evidence, address the earlier assessment and explain how competing information was tested.
Read the articleCase analysisA court authorises an observed meeting. The worker’s first responsibility is to understand that mandate and respond to what happens to the child—not improvise a different arrangement.
Read the article
Case analysisWhen a family dispute moves onto a screen, the child needs protection from exposure as well as an opportunity to be heard. Those are different tasks.
Read the articleCase analysisWhen a lawyer asks investigators to examine possible influence on a child, the immediate protection question must not disappear inside the criminal file.
Read the article
Case analysisAn assessment can shape where a child lives, who they see and what support they receive. Its conclusions need to withstand scrutiny, regardless of which institution produced it.
Read the article
Case analysisChildren need room to explain their lives in their own words. They should not be asked to prove loyalty to an adult or provide the answer that ends a case.
Read the articleShare your experience, join the volunteer team or offer pro bono professional help. We welcome contributions from Georgia and abroad.
