Whose words are in the child’s account?

Start with the record, not the label

A reliable review asks what the child was asked, in which language, by whom and after which earlier conversations. Calling an interview “structured” does not answer those questions. Neither does calling a child “coached”. We want the sequence and wording examined before a conclusion is attached to the child.

The assessment passage reproduced in the supplied case review describes a parent interpreting the child’s native-language expressions during an interview in other languages, followed by a Google check. That recorded arrangement raises a concrete question about the source of the words attributed to the child. It does not require us to publish the child’s identity or intimate account. [1]

False memories are not a diagnosis

Memory can be affected by suggestion. But a general possibility cannot establish that a particular child has a false memory, that an allegation is fabricated or that a particular parent caused it. The EAPL research-based white paper recommends testing alternative hypotheses, recording interviews and using trained professionals with continuing feedback. It also advises against relying on dolls, body diagrams and interpretation of drawings as interview evidence. [2]

Our proposed review begins with the first available account and traces later additions. It should examine language comprehension, outside information, the wording of questions and whether a report contains an adult’s interpretation rather than the child’s statement. The purpose is to test how information was obtained, not to interrogate the child repeatedly until an adult is satisfied.

Support is not the same as directing an answer

US forensic-interview guidance favours open invitations and time to respond, warns against unnecessary repeated questioning and recognises that some children need more than one appropriately planned session. A distressed, hesitant or non-linear account is not, by itself, evidence of dishonesty. [3]

We seek trained, independent interpretation whenever the child needs it. A parent may have a legitimate support role, but that is different from controlling the translation in a dispute to which the parent is a party. The professional should record who was present, why, and how outside influence was limited. Any necessary departure from the planned method should be visible in the record.

Look for conduct, not a syndrome

The Family Justice Council’s 2024 guidance for England and Wales rejects “parental alienation syndrome” as a diagnostic basis, while recognising that proven psychological manipulation can seriously harm children and family relationships. It requires examination of competing explanations, including abuse and protective behaviour; a failed abuse allegation does not itself establish manipulation. This is comparative guidance, not Georgian law. [4]

For our work in Georgia, the questions are concrete. Was a child threatened, rewarded for a particular account or asked to repeat an adult’s story? Is there a contemporaneous record? Could fear reflect actual mistreatment, a translation problem or another explanation? The same questions apply to both parents and to professionals.

What we ask institutions to do

We propose preservation of the complete interview record, independent review of seriously disputed interview methods and clear arrangements for a child’s lawyer to raise concerns. Summaries should identify their authors and sources; translations should identify the interpreter and verified language competence.

When influence is suspected, investigation of that concern and protection of the child must continue together. A child should not be made to choose which adult to vindicate. Treatment should address the child’s needs; assessment of disputed facts should remain an accountable investigative task.