The unexplained change described in the claim
The lawsuit says the Agency’s earlier reports described a positive caregiving environment and a close relationship between the child and a caregiver. It challenges later conclusions that departed from that account, alleging that the change was not adequately explained and that independent professional concerns were disregarded. [1]
An assessment is allowed to change. New evidence, a new risk or the child’s changing needs may require it. What matters is whether the later report identifies that evidence and explains the difference. A repeated allegation is not new corroboration merely because it appears in several institutional documents.
A reported judicial response to partiality
The claim also describes separate proceedings in Tbilisi City Court in which Judge Khatuna Jinoria removed Agency staff from involvement because of a subjective interest in the case. This is the claimant’s account of that ruling; the supplied claim does not identify those removed staff members. [1]
That account points towards a wider question: when a conflict is identified, does a replacement worker examine the material independently, or inherit the conclusions unchanged? Reassignment should be accompanied by a review of the work affected by the conflict. It need not erase reliable observations, but it should not protect unsupported conclusions from scrutiny.
Follow the information back to its source
The earlier case review reproduces an assessment attributed to Shorena Maisuradze that describes a parent interpreting the child’s native-language expressions, followed by a check through Google. The review disputes the reliability of that arrangement. This is a specific methodological issue, not proof by itself that an assessor intentionally gave false testimony. [3]
We seek records that distinguish the child’s words, the interpreter’s rendering, an adult’s account, the professional’s observation and the final inference. Without those distinctions, a court may be unable to identify what was independently established and what was repeated from an interested source.
A reviewable assessment is a better public service
The Law on Social Work requires case documentation and impartiality. Our proposed report format would add a clear account of changed findings, competing evidence and unresolved questions. Supervisors should be able to trace why the recommendation changed and which information still needs checking. [2]
For the State Care Agency, this means more than a new template. It requires time for supervision, access to independent specialist advice and an effective way to challenge an assessment before it becomes the basis for a long-lasting restriction.
Legal sources & references
- Anonymised administrative claim reviewed by Child Rights Georgia.
- Law of Georgia on Social Work — Articles 10, 15–20, 27–30; Georgian consolidated text
- Confidential case review concerning assessments and institutional responses.
