Georgia has a child-friendly model. Access must become routine.

There is a service to build on

Georgia is not starting from nothing. UNICEF describes a State Care Agency centre in Tbilisi, launched in 2022 with UNICEF and Estonian support, based on the Barnahus approach. It brings investigative, medical and psychological work into a child-friendly service. The existence of that model matters when asking why another child did not reach appropriate help. [1]

Our question is operational: how does a child enter the service, who decides eligibility, how long does access take and what happens outside its coverage? A model should not remain a success story disconnected from the family standing in a court corridor.

A recent report identifies the gap

A March 2026 research report prepared under a Council of Europe project records uneven access to child-friendly procedures, limited continuity of rehabilitation and fragmented coordination. Its fieldwork took place in November–December 2024. It recognises progress as well as shortcomings. These qualitative findings do not establish national rates of false allegations or discrimination against fathers. [2]

We take that as a reason to test delivery, not to announce that no services exist. Institutions should be able to show what has improved since the fieldwork and which children still encounter delays. New buildings and training sessions matter only alongside practical access, case supervision and follow-up.

Bring protection and investigation together

The Lanzarote Convention addresses assistance to victims and child-sensitive investigation: trained interviewers, suitable settings, limiting interviews to what is necessary and avoiding unjustified delay. It also requires safeguards for children whose representatives have a conflict of interest. These obligations do not make every disputed allegation a proven offence. They set expectations for how the process treats the child. [3]

We propose that a referral concerning abuse or suspected manipulation identify both the investigative route and the support route. The child should not have to repeat an intimate account to each institution merely to establish eligibility for help. Necessary additional interviewing should have a recorded purpose. Interpreter availability and the child’s own legal representation should be planned from the start.

The failures we want authorities to measure

Our proposed review would track the interval between a report and professional assessment; the number and purpose of interviews; whether the child understood the language; access to a lawyer independent of parental conflict; completed treatment; and the reasons for any missed appointment. It would also record how interim restrictions were reviewed and how schools were kept informed of practical learning needs.

We want the State Care Agency, the responsible ministries, the Legal Aid Service and court administration to agree who owns each step. Aggregate results can be made public without disclosing children’s identities. A referral sent should not be counted as a service delivered, and attendance at training should not be counted as demonstrated interviewing competence.

From pilot practice to an enforceable route

We seek a published referral route, a needs-based mechanism for independent expert review and a rapid way to escalate a failed protection plan. The Public Defender’s recommendations should receive a recorded response that states what was done and what remains unresolved. Where an institution disagrees, its reasons should be available for review.

Changes requiring legislation should be put to Parliament with a defined problem, a proposed provision, an implementation cost and a way to measure results. Changes that already fall within an institution’s powers should not wait for a new law. This is the programme we invite professionals, families and institutions in Georgia and abroad to work on with us.