What the law requires. What needs to change.

Georgian law and international obligations

Article 4(5) of Georgia’s Constitution gives international treaties precedence over domestic normative acts, subject to the Constitution and Constitutional Agreement. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights therefore belong alongside Georgian legislation in the assessment of children’s cases. [1] [2] [3]

A hearing is not the same as protection

Article 76 of the Code on the Rights of the Child requires priority for children’s applications. Articles 75 and 81 address interim protection and reasoned decisions grounded in the child’s circumstances. [4]

Our demand: a timetable that responds to the risk, a decision on urgent requests and a practical plan for education, support and safe contact while the case remains open. A postponement must not silently decide the child’s future.

An appointed lawyer must be able to act

Articles 73, 74, 79 and 80 address specialised professionals, legal assistance and representation. [4]

Our demand: confidential contact with the child, an understanding of the file and the child’s language, adequate time, independent judgment and the ability to challenge evidence. Public funding must support the work, not merely put a name on the file.

An official report is not beyond scrutiny

Civil Procedure Code Articles 162–173 provide routes for independently obtained expert evidence, questions to an expert and, where the statutory conditions are met, additional or repeat examination. [5]

Our demand: a genuine opportunity to use those routes. An institution’s status cannot substitute for a sound method or an explained conclusion. We advocate funding for necessary independent expertise where cost would otherwise defeat effective participation.

Schooling, language and identity belong in the decision

CRC Articles 8, 28 and 29 protect identity and education, including respect for a child’s own culture and language; Article 30 specifically concerns minority and indigenous children. [2]

Our demand: continued schooling, a plan for missed learning and attention to the child’s nationality, family languages and cultural relationships. Integration should add opportunities, not require a child to lose an existing identity.

A failure already examined by the European Court

In N.Ts. and Others v. Georgia (2016), the European Court found an Article 8 violation in proceedings involving inadequate guardianship representation and insufficient attention to children’s views and interests. The judgment shows the consequences when representation exists formally but does not protect the children effectively. [6]

Our priorities for institutional and legislative change

We seek practical changes in case management, legal-aid capacity, access to expert evidence and the coordination of education and protection services. Some require institutions to carry out duties that already exist. Others require new procedures, funding arrangements or amendments to legislation.

We welcome cooperation on these proposals from practitioners, researchers, public institutions and members of Parliament. Our Work sets out the programme and how to contribute.

From a legal right to a reviewable practice

Our reporting examines how a child’s words reach a decision: language assistance, the independence of the interview, the limits of expert conclusions and the response when a professional or the Public Defender identifies a problem. The focus pages and Journal connect those questions with concrete proposals for courts, the State Care Agency and legal-aid providers.

We distinguish the rules applicable at the time of an event from current standards and proposals for reform. Most substantive provisions of the Child Rights Code took effect on 1 September 2020; an earlier interview is not assessed as though every later rule already applied. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention form part of the relevant wider legal framework. [4]

An administrative claim tests responsibility for omissions

The lawsuit reviewed for our reporting asks Tbilisi City Court to assess harm attributed to the State Care Agency’s acts and omissions and award symbolic damages of one lari. Its argument is that responsibility must be examined across the individual episodes, including what the Agency failed to do after warnings and changed circumstances. [7]

The claim invokes Article 20 of the Law on Social Work. It should be read within the statutory limits on powers, alongside the duties of documentation, cooperation and impartiality. In our reform proposals, a gap between services should trigger a clear referral and follow-up, rather than an unsupported assumption that another institution has taken over. [8]

Article 8 case-law on family contact also looks at the practical steps taken, the child’s interests and the limits of coercion. We use that framework to ask for proportionate action and review, not an automatic outcome for either adult. [9]