One lari. A demand for public responsibility.

The claim is for one lari

The administrative claim reviewed by Child Rights Georgia asks the Administrative Cases Panel of Tbilisi City Court to order the LEPL Agency for State Care and Assistance for the (Statutory) Victims of Human Trafficking to pay one lari in damages for alleged violations of a child’s rights and best interests. That is the requested remedy, not an award already made. [1] [4]

The significance lies in the responsibility the court is asked to examine. The claim challenges an accumulation of decisions and omissions: separation from a caregiver, interruption of contact, disputed assessments, schooling, medical follow-up, interpretation and the response to the Public Defender. It asks for the episodes to be assessed individually, rather than dismissed as an undifferentiated conflict between parents. [1]

A file can grow while protection stands still

The claim says professionals received repeated information about difficulties in the child’s life without securing an effective response. It also describes corrective court decisions and an appointed child lawyer who raised concerns about repeated changes of home and school. These parts of the account matter: the problem is not simply whether somebody noticed, but whether the warning reached a person able and required to act. [1]

A referral, report or hearing is a step in a process. It does not show that a child attended school, reached a doctor or received independent language assistance. We want institutional reporting to make that distinction visible.

Public authority is more than a position in litigation

The Agency’s task should not shrink to defending its previous opinion in court. When the facts change, or a professional assessment is challenged, the child needs a fresh evaluation and a practical response. The lawsuit invokes Article 20 of the Law on Social Work in arguing against an unduly narrow view of responsibility. That provision concerns functions within legally conferred powers; it is not a licence for unlimited intervention. [1] [2]

Our proposal is a written responsibility plan for complex cases: the outstanding need, the authorised decision-maker, the next action and a review date. Where one body lacks a power, referral must lead to an identified recipient and a recorded response.

Article 8 reaches beyond the final order

The claim invokes Article 8 of the European Convention in relation to the child’s private and family life, health and protection. Whether the alleged conduct meets the legal test requires examination of the facts and duties in each episode. The point for reform is immediate: family-life protection must operate during proceedings, not only appear in the eventual judgment. [1] [3]

Questions about language, health and family contact belong in that examination together. An administrative label should not hide the consequence for a child who cannot speak freely, obtain care or maintain an important relationship.

From one claim to changes other children can use

We call for decisions that identify the failed task and the body responsible for correcting it, alongside any remedy the court can lawfully grant. At the institutional level, we seek follow-up of adverse judgments, independent review of disputed assessments and clear escalation of unmet health and education needs.

Those are the initiative’s reform demands, not additional orders already contained in this claim. The symbolic amount does not make the case small. It places a direct question before public institutions: when protection fails, who must put it right?