An official letterhead is not a method
A useful report explains the material examined, the questions addressed and the route from observation to conclusion. It should identify limitations rather than turn an incomplete picture into certainty.
When the child’s language, schooling, family relationships or exposure to pressure are relevant, they need to be examined—not assumed. A legal decision should not be outsourced to an unexplained professional label.
Independent evidence is a recognised procedural route
Under Article 162(2) of Georgia’s Civil Procedure Code, parties may arrange an examination independently of the court and submit the report at the filing or preparatory stage; they may ask for time to produce it. Article 162(3) sets conditions for later submission at the main hearing. [1]
These rules matter when access to a second professional opinion is obstructed. The request should identify the relevant issue, the proposed evidence and the applicable procedural route, so that a refusal can be examined against its reasons.
The report can be questioned
Article 171 allows the parties and representatives to examine and comment on a report and ask questions of the expert. Article 172 makes clear that an expert conclusion is not binding on the court. Under Article 173, additional or repeat examination is available on specified grounds and conditions. [1]
We press for these opportunities to be real: time to see the report, access to the material needed for a fair challenge and an answer to specific methodological objections.
Access and cost must not defeat the right to participate
Being allowed to submit evidence is not the same as being able to afford it. We propose needs-based public funding for essential independent assessments, with a reasoned decision on necessity and cost. The purpose is to make the child’s effective participation possible.
Access to a child for assessment also requires proper authority, consent where applicable and safeguards. Independent scrutiny can include reviewing existing records; it need not mean making a child repeat the same distressing account.
What we want to see change
Courts should address requests for expert evidence in reasoned decisions. Lawyers should identify unsupported assumptions rather than merely repeat the report’s conclusion. Experts should work within their competence, state limitations and account for the child’s communication needs.
A report deserves weight because of the quality of its work—not because challenging it is difficult.
