Protection is still being postponed
The materials supplied to us describe a dispute in which the effectiveness of the child’s representation is itself contested. A submission supporting an appeal says the lawyer already representing the child had not spoken with the child for a long time and considered further contact unnecessary. It argues for the involvement of another, privately instructed lawyer. These are the author’s account and arguments, not findings by this organisation or the court. [3]
Confidential case material reports that the appellate court has also refused the proposed lawyer’s involvement. The same material describes how the child’s existing representation remains inactive: the lawyer is waiting for a hearing and does not visit the child. The written appellate ruling was not supplied with these materials, so we do not attribute reasons to the court. The proposed representative and the lawyer already acting for the child are different roles. [4]
A serious failure of protection
The confidential account describes how the first-instance case remains at the preparatory stage, with no substantive discussion for more than a year and requests for temporary father–child contact unresolved for over two years. The material also describes the mother repeatedly changing the child’s residence outside Tbilisi, and the child attending four schools over two years. [4]
If accurate, this is a serious failure of protection. While institutions wait, a child has to live with the consequences: interrupted learning, uncertain routines and weakening family relationships. A pending case does not suspend those needs. Refusing one proposed representative does not answer whether the child has effective legal help now.
Meet the child. Establish what has changed. Act.
A child’s lawyer should maintain appropriate, regular and confidential communication with the child, in a language and form the child understands. The lawyer should explain the case and available choices, obtain current information and faithfully communicate the child’s views. An old conversation cannot establish what the child needs after further moves, school changes or a long delay.
We ask for an individual plan of representation: suitable contact with the child; a review of current schooling, residence and support; clear identification of urgent applications; and a record of what has been requested and answered. Where access to the child is obstructed, the lawyer should seek an appropriate lawful response rather than treat the obstruction as the end of the task.
The child’s voice and the lawyer’s independence
The Child Rights Code protects the child’s participation and access to legal assistance. It recognises the right to invite a lawyer and requires attention to representation and possible conflicts. [1]
Private funding alone does not resolve independence; state appointment alone does not prove effective representation. The court should examine the proposed arrangement, the child’s views and any actual conflict. The lawyer’s client is the child. A lawyer must not substitute a parent’s preferred outcome for the child’s voice, or dismiss that voice merely because adults disagree with it.
Decide present needs while the main case continues
We call for a prompt, reasoned decision on pending interim requests, based on current evidence of the child’s safety and needs. Safe contact may require safeguards, support or supervision; restrictions also need a reasoned basis and review. This is a demand for a lawful decision, not an automatic result for either parent.
The Code gives child-related applications priority and provides for interim measures against possible irreparable harm. The European Court’s Article 8 guidance also recognises the special urgency of parent–child proceedings: time can effectively determine the outcome. [1] [2]
The court should identify what can be decided now, what further information is necessary, who must obtain it and by when. Questions about representation must be addressed without leaving education, safety and family contact indefinitely unanswered.
What accountable representation would show
A child should know who their lawyer is, how to reach them and what happens next. The case file should show recent contact, the child’s views, current evidence and a response to urgent problems. Where a representative is not performing that role, the concern should be examined promptly through the appropriate professional and procedural channels.
Our practical experience since 2018 leads us to a simple standard: representation should be measured by the legal protection made available to the child, including between hearings. Another appointment entry or another distant date is not enough.
Legal sources & references
- Code on the Rights of the Child — Articles 74–81; current Georgian consolidated text
- European Court of Human Rights Registry — Guide on Article 8, paragraph 49: diligence in parent–child proceedings
- Confidential material concerning representation and procedural delay.
- Confidential material concerning appellate representation; the written ruling was not supplied.
Corrections & updates
Updated with confidential material concerning representation and procedural delay. Source identities and case dates are withheld. The written appellate ruling has not been reviewed.
