According to the Tbilisi Court of Appeals Administrative Cases Chamber 23 July, 2020 decision, the Russian federation’ citizen, minor’s mother, Olivia Antony’s complaint has been rejected, in which, she demanded the Tbilisi Police Department Vake-Saburtalo 4th divisions 1 June 2020 restraining order against the EU and Czech Citizen, Phremiszl Anton to be considered, as legal, about the case for not considering the child’s interests. Therefore, the Court of Appeals didn’t share Olivia Antony’s and her representative’s, including, Vake-Saburtalo Regional Centre’s concern about the urgency and legality of issued order.
Which remained the fact of satisfying the EU and Czech republic citizen’s complaint against Tbilisi Police Department Vake-Saburtalo Police 4th Section, and 1 June, 2020 restraining order for not considering the interests of the minor has been annulled, as the basis of issuing the order was considered as unjustified and illegal – The 30 May 2020 Report of Tbilisi Vake-Saburtalo Regional Centre and it was determined, that the child’s legal representative, the father, had been unjustifiably restricted from having relationship with her child for 30 days as a result of a joint operation of mentioned state agencies.
According to “Young Barristers”, the decisions of 2 instances of the court, which can’t be appealed, is an objective answer towards the 2 state agencies: LEPL Agency for State Care and Assistance For the (Statutory) Victims of Human trafficking and Tbilisi Police Department Vake-Saburtalo Police 4th division, which on 29 May, 1 and 2 June, made joint operation, which ended in handing and taking the baby away from one legal representative to another, against the will of the minor,
During that period, the fact of baselessly accusing the father for not fulfilling the temporary decision has been continued by the mother – Olivia, based on her targeted campaign and, with the support of Social Service Agency – from Nino Iobashvili and Giorgi Epitashvili, as if the minor was wanted in all streets of Tbilisi, as if for the competent authority the address of the minor is unknown, the father is so-called violator and other, but the party didn’t had any single evidence to prove not only the fact of neglecting the minor’s interests, but also, the fact of worsening the social environment of baby, the suspension of her adaptation, and the negative influence from the father’s or grandmother’s side. The agencies had no enforced evidence, which would confirm the negligence of minor interests or not considering them from the father’s side.
The court has requested 2 June 2020 report of questioning the baby, which clearly states the behavior of the minor. According to the questioning protocol, a) the baby confirms, that she lives at Iosebidze street with her mother and father, b) the minor confirms, that her grandmother treats her well, c) the minor confirms, that her father treats her well and doesn’t bother, provides her with social needs, d) the minor confirms that she has Georgian friends, meets them at house, therefore, is adapted, e) the minor confirms, that the father and the grandmother does cook for her; f) the minor explains, that she loves mother, but doesn’t miss her and doesn’t recall her; h) the minor confirms, that the mother physically violates on the father, the mother makes her angry and therefore, doesn’t miss her.
The party confirmed, that the mentioned recording doesn’t show the objective interests of the minor and it only expresses the formal ground to legally separate her from her father (the disputed expression is the last sentence in the protocol). It should be noted out that from the living place, where the child was questioned, the trusted persons of father – translator and grandmother were expelled.
“Young Barristers” specially notes out, that the presented evidences and factual information in the case files, make justified assumption, that in the name of the best interests of the child, the mentioned workers of the agency: Nino Iobashvili and Giorgi Kupreishvili, does the full discredit, demoralization of the legal representative of the minor – the father, which is presented by the actions of them – giving the legal advises and showing the support of Olivia Antony, in particular, based on what kind of strategy, actions to conclude in order to “protect” the minor from her father. Therefore, the law of Georgia is violated as well as all the action standard of the Social Service Agency. There is no reaction from the Audit Agency on the mentioned pretension and malefaction, which should be independent structure, which, on its own, is busy, hiding the facts of misconduct under their own agency. And such kind of unlawful silence on the above mentioned violations of the law encourages lawlessness.
There is no kind of minimal opportunity to protect the right, as the Social Service Agency of Georgia doesn’t listen to the citizen of EU and don’t care about the argumentation, as being open and direct whilst supporting the side of the case - Olivia Antony, thus, making justified assumption about the motives of corruption and on the hidden agreements. The father from the birth of child, takes care of her and the baby is attached to him, and Olivia Antony – the mother, based on the Prague Court’s enforced decision, is addicted to narcotics and doesn’t have the skills to take care of baby. The silence of Social Service Agency’s employees is crime and is double standard. The facts given to the Social Agency, in particular, the European Court’s decision, hasn’t been considered and moreover, they aren’t interested in studying the case and/or making the special measurements.
Nino Iobashvili, within the framework of the family dispute, did do anything to prevent, when the party justified, that Olivia Antony through legal and illegal ways tried to take the baby from Georgia to the Russian Federation. Nino Iobashvili intentionally chose to remain silence on the threat, and the authenticity of such threat was confirmed by the Tbilisi Court of Appeals, which on June 5, 2020 prohibited Olivia Antony from leaving Georgia until the end of the case.
Nino Iobashvili violates the basic principles of the Law on Social Work (social work is based on the principle of equality). With regard to the father, the principle of proportionally, as from their side the whole series of defamatory documents have been presented, which serve the purpose of immorality of the father and starting the, criminal proceedings towards him. (A measure to be implemented by a social worker shall serve to protect the best interest of a beneficiary. The selected measure shall be appropriate, necessary and proportionate.) Nino Iobashvili violates the obligation to maintain good faith and professional ethics, since the reports and letters made by her is consisted of falsified facts (A social worker shall carry out social work in accordance with the purposes of this Law, and values and ethical principles.) Nino Iobashvili, based on the case files, is biased and expresses only the interest of minor’s mother, and in the family dispute is side. (It shall be inadmissible for a social worker to be a party to any transaction or to act according to subjective interests.) She doesn’t have the legal, strategic, administrative, professional or ethical competence required by law. As she refuses to respond to the father’s violated right, and only is interested to take decision in favor of her mother, didn’t intentionally give 74 year old Grandma Permission to have relationship with her grandchild, didn’t react on not fulfilling the temporary decision by the mother’s side, doesn’t know English and the Czech languages. On question, how she described the child’s position on various issues, whilst the baby speaks on Czech Language and can understand English language, in front of the court she said, that the submitted documents was made based on the child’s gestures. Nino Iobashvili’s correspondence with the child’s father is very shameful, as the opinions which should be on English language are electronically submitted in Russian, with incorrect grammar notes, which in the end creates an example of incompetence of the social worker in the named dispute. (In order to exercise the powers provided for by this Law, Article 43, a social worker shall have the following competencies). Therefore, the organization calls the Social Workers actions shameful and categorically demands that their activities be checked and raise the issue of official responsibility on her. Nino Iobashvili’s competence creates more serious ground for bias and selfishness, deserves public distrust and requires urgent decisions by the supervisory structures.
“Young Barristers” have repeatedly addressed the Ministry and LEPL Agency for State Care and Assistance For the (Statutory) Victims of Human trafficking in order to study the activities of those, involved in the family dispute, but to no avail. The organization is ready to in any format continue discussion in those facts. The use of selective law doesn’t correspond to the ruling political party’s ongoing process of reforming the children’s rights. Therefore, it is necessary to fast identify the problem and solve it – to take proper decisions towards Nino Iobashvili and with her, towards the other persons involved in that dispute.
“Young Barristers” won’t adapt to the situation, happening in the Social Service Agencies, illegal misconduct and large-scale biases, which undermine the child-centered environment, image of Georgia, makes system a place for hidden agreements and encourages incompetence, which is as disastrous process for social services.
In the Tbilisi Court of Appeals the case was reviewed by Judge Davit Akhalbedashvili, and in the first instance court, the judge – Sophio Gagnidze. The witnesses were questioned, for the threat of being biased, the Czech language specialist has been avoided. The court, in the end, made 6 court hearings for the case. The interests of the father – EU citizen, was represented by the head of “Young Barristers”, Archil Kaikatsishvili and in the first instance court, the criminal lawyer: Nika Sadradze.
