A loss that can be overlooked
A language can disappear from a child’s daily life long before a court decides where the child will live. Contact becomes harder. A conversation with a parent or grandparent becomes dependent on someone else. Part of the child’s history becomes less accessible.
Our position is that decision-makers should examine this risk early, alongside safety, schooling and care—not discover it after years have passed.
Nationality, culture and language are related rights
CRC Article 8 protects identity, including nationality, name and family relations. Article 29(1)(c) places respect for the child’s cultural identity and language within the aims of education. Article 30 specifically protects the cultural, religious and language rights of children belonging to minorities and indigenous communities. [1]
Nationality is a legal status; cultural identity and language are broader parts of a life. A passport does not, by itself, preserve a child’s ability to speak with their family.
Belonging in Georgia need not erase another connection
Article 11(1) of Georgia’s Constitution prohibits discrimination, including on grounds of language and origin. Article 11(2) expressly protects Georgian citizens’ culture and use of their mother tongue. The CRC’s non-discrimination obligation extends to children within the state’s jurisdiction, including those who are not Georgian citizens. [1] [2]
Learning Georgian and maintaining a family language can serve the same child. We reject the assumption that integration requires abandoning a national or cultural connection.
The language of the proceedings matters too
A child needs to understand the questions and be understood in return. Civil Procedure Code Article 9(4) provides for an interpreter for a person who does not know the state language. The Child Rights Code also requires information and legal assistance adapted to the child’s language and communication needs. [3] [4]
We call for language needs to be identified before an interview or assessment, with competent interpretation where needed. Difficulty communicating should not be mistaken for unwillingness, lack of attachment or an absence of views.
What protection should look like
We ask for decisions and support plans to record the child’s nationality, established languages, cultural ties and actual ability to communicate with family. Where safe, contact arrangements should support those relationships. Educational planning should address maintenance of family languages and help with the language of instruction.
Courts still have to apply the legal tests for custody, education and safety in the individual case. Our demand is that identity and language be assessed as the child’s rights alongside those tests—not left to the preferences or convenience of adults.
