A child’s life cannot stay on hold for a court.

A preparatory stage that keeps continuing

The confidential account describes how the first-instance case remains at the preparatory stage, with no substantive discussion for more than a year and temporary contact requests 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. [6]

This account calls for urgent scrutiny of the timetable and the child’s current needs. We ask the court to identify each outstanding interim request, decide it with reasons and set a clear next step. A representation dispute or the wait for another hearing should not leave every immediate question unanswered.

The cost of waiting

A hearing moves. A report is requested. Another hearing follows. In the meantime, a child still needs a school, safe care and relationships that can be sustained. The file may be moving while the child’s position deteriorates.

Our concern is not the existence of a procedure. It is the absence of a timely response to a need that cannot wait for the final judgment.

Priority must be visible in the case

The Child Rights Code’s Article 76 gives priority to children’s applications. Article 75(3) permits interim protection on a party’s application against possible irreparable harm. Article 81 requires reasoning that addresses the child’s safety, development, education and relationships. [1]

A court should show how it has applied those duties: which risk is urgent, what is being done now and when the remaining question will be decided. Repeating “best interests” without that reasoning answers very little.

The unfinished assessment cannot become a waiting room

The lawyer’s complaint supplied to us quotes a forensic assessment that could not resolve psychological suffering on the available account. Separately, the case review raises translation and professional-method concerns. The sources do not establish the child’s present needs by themselves, but they identify questions for competent review. [3] [4]

A court can separate the time needed to establish a disputed fact from the time available to protect schooling, communication and support. It should identify what can be decided on the current material and what genuinely depends on further evidence. Leaving every issue open until a final report arrives can allow a temporary situation to become the outcome by default.

Put responsibility between hearing dates

We propose that orders obtaining further evidence identify the task, the responsible person and a realistic deadline. If the work is delayed, the next review should address the reason and the interim consequences for the child. An unexplained renewal of the same instruction does not create progress.

A child’s representative should be able to bring changed circumstances back to the court without repeating the entire history of the dispute. An urgent application should make the immediate problem visible: what has changed, what harm may follow and what proportionate step is requested. Institutions should answer that question rather than merely acknowledge another document.

Do not let delay create the result

If a child loses schooling, a familiar language or a relationship during proceedings, the passage of time may later be presented as a reason to accept the new situation. Our position is that a decision-maker must examine how that situation arose, including the effect of institutional inaction.

Continuity matters, but it should not become an automatic reward for obstruction. The response needs to protect the child now and address the original cause.

What we ask courts to change

Decide urgent requests promptly. Set a child-specific timetable. Explain substantial postponements. Keep current information on schooling, support and safety in the file. Hear the child in a suitable way, and make the measures taken during the case reviewable.

For proceedings determining civil rights, Article 6 of the European Convention guarantees a hearing within a reasonable time. Article 8 protects private and family life. Both belong in the legal assessment of the child’s situation. [2]

The measure of progress

A new hearing date is not the only result to record. Has the child returned to learning? Has the immediate risk been addressed? Is necessary support available? Can safe relationships continue? Those are the questions that should accompany the case number.

The court file must not become the child’s timetable

The administrative claim describes a residence dispute, appellate intervention, requests concerning school attendance and an eventual claim against the Agency for its conduct across the proceedings. Those are distinct legal steps. The claimant says essential needs remained unresolved as the steps accumulated. [5]

We want Tbilisi City Court and Tbilisi Court of Appeals to make the status of urgent requests clear: what has been decided, what awaits evidence and who must obtain it. Review of a disputed document should proceed alongside lawful decisions on present education, health and contact needs. The child should not have to wait for every historical issue to be resolved before receiving help.