The head of the organization "Young Barristers", Archil Kaikatsishvili makes a special statements and asks the society with the high credibility to consider all the conditions, which assess the factual and legal circumstances surrounding one case.

"The organization has been exercising the representational authority in the case of family dispute in the Georgian Judiciary System since November 2019. The case is complex and is reviewed under the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which, at the national level, has a significant effect on establishing the uniform practice, as well as, it is strategically important litigation. Such kind of disputes in the Georgian court is few. Not more than 7-8 cases. Therefore, there are 2 task for me - To protect client's best interests, which automatically assumes that all the actions are also in the best interests of the child, despite the emotional background in the process and the prohibitions established by the court and the rules linked to the safety of the case, which is a mandatory requirement and obligation towards the parties - I would like to remind the public that the court hearings are closed due to the fact, that there are minor's interests and we, lawyers aren't allowed to speak publicly about  about the disputed evidences presented in the case.

In the Georgian Judiciary System the case is reviewed, whether the minor is illegally placed in Georgia without the agreement of her mother or not, is she adapted  in Georgia and are there legal preconditions to send the child back to the Republic of Cyprus, where she was leaving before moving to Georgia, before 2018. Based on the Tbilisi City Court civil Cases Panel's 22 October, 2019 decision, that court considered the child's usual place of residence the Republic of Cyprus. Therefore, thought, that it was appropriate to send the child back to there. After the first instance court's decision, the minor's father addressed the organization and requested legal analysis of the case, as he expressed disappointment with the improper performances of the professional duties of his representatives. The organization studied the case and came to the conclusion, that there was a perspective of correcting the mistakes made during the proceedings, including the opportunity  of presenting new evidences.

From 11 November 2019, from the appeal stage,  we were able to submit all the essential documents to the court, to show the objective reality, that the child is living and adapting with her father and other members of the family (from her birth), she is adapted in the Georgian environment, her family members' permanent place of residence is Georgia and court's decision to send the child back to the Republic of Cyprus, doesn't correspond to the child's todays demands and her best interests. Moreover, the child is legally present in Georgia as she had legal grounds to enter. Also, there are new evidences submitted to the court, that does a thorough examination of the disputed circumstances.

Such kind of actions on the case by the father's representative irritated the opposing party and made them think of the final outcomes of the case, therefore, made them decide to have an influence on the court and symphathy on the community groups and that way maintain the first-instance court's result. The party considered, that it was necessary to have publicity of the case, the tele-discussion, the violation of law and court's demands, disclosing the false facts to the public, which is neither based on the case materials nor the objective reality.

For the organization and me at all stages of the proceedings the fundamental issue has become the protection of the child's interests, confidentiality of her and her family member's personal datas. The opposing party has decided to have the first TV discussion in the "Skhva Nanukas Show", but the organization, based on the 2020 February communication, gave the facts of the case to the broadcasting authorities and, in end, the show didn't take the place.

I have repeatedly warned my colleague, including in a written way, not to have communicate with the media until the end of the case, but as it turned out, i couldn't convince her. On March 26, 2020, the mother of the child talked about the case in the program: "Profile".

We were unable to convince the program to reject the discussion about the unfinished case. TV company in a written form confirmed, that they wouldn't identify the minor - her name, her health condition, any of her photo-episode, also, her father's name and surname wouldn't be named, and nor would any of his identifying photos be published/displayed. From the host of the program, there would only be the disclosure of the facts, based on the respondent's given information and opinion. Despite the many arguments and documents submitted by me, the program decide to only show a small chronometer of the other party's position, which is unfortunate, but TV Company "Rustavi 2" has complied with the guarantees of protecting the personal data and privacy.

The society became aware of my arguments on the issues raised in the program, which was related to the groundless accusations of the child's mother and fake information about divorcing with her husband, the fact of Interpol "searching" her husband; "kidnapping" the child and the "unknown" place of her residence in Georgia. Due to the fact that the case is being reviewed under the Hague convention, that restricts the party's from publishing the disputed evidences, we respect the law, respect the court, and, above all, the interests of the minor, and only on basis of that, we can't give a full speech on other details. I want to assure the society, that the child and family, who are EU citizens, feel safe and full of patience waiting the final decision of the court, in order to act in accordance with any judgment of the court. Also, I want to assure the society, that the minor's mother's statement about the different factual circumstances have no credibility, there are only situational and fragmentary episodes shown, the beliefs about the minor's passport, the isolation of the child (the child is enrolled in the Georgian garden), the impossibility of speaking with her on a social network, the method suggested by the mother to identify the location are incorrect. The family really bought the cat for the child, named "Angelina", but not instead of the mother, as the different attitudes towards the cat and the mother from the child are well read in many reports of the Social Service Agency.

I would like to explain, in order to make it clear  for the society, that with the main decision of the Tbilisi City Court, the temporary order is also appealed, which established the rules of the parent-child relationship. The only motivation of the party, involved in the process, is to have communication with her child during overnight stay. Based on my responsibility, I would like to explain the two reasons why such kind of hindering happens and to tell the public the risks and challenges, that were objectively posed by the first instance court's decision - there is an evidence presented in the case, which implies that the child's mother aims to abduct the child illegally, through the so-called Tskhinvali and Abkhazia borders to the Russian Federation, as the Russian citizenship and corruption an the "border' will help her. As a result, she will revenge against her husband and other members of the family, towards whom she has no social basis for the negative talks.

Despite the sincere, but unassuming emotions of the host and the author of the program, Maia Asatiani, my, as a lawyer's primary task is to protect the minor's interests and, together with the state properly evaluate the challenges in order for Georgia to avoid dramatic developments of this dispute. About the challenges there is Ministry of Justice informed, which is central agency in the case, Ministry of External Affairs of Georgia, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Prosecutor's Office. I would like to inform the society, that I am fully informed and my decision towards the challenge is in accordance with the risks. The mother of the minor and her representative link the challenge to the family's fear and based on that argument tries to debunk the evidences, which, unfortunately, haven't been properly assessed by the first instance court. that's the reason, why the family strengthened the protection of the minor. The minor's actions are protected by the guard. I would like to emphasize, that if minor appears in the Russian Federation, that fact will completely undermine  the final decision of the court, as, on the one hand, there will be a substantial threat that the enforcement of the Georgian court's decision won't happen, and on the other hand, Neither Georgia, nor cyprus, and afterwards, potentially the Czech Republic will be unable to regain its citizen. I would like to remind you that the case is being reviewed under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child, which all the parties should remember, and it shouldn't be linked to the usual anatomy of the family disputed in the Georgian court.

Therefore, that's the basis why temporary order of the court can't be fulfilled and not on the grounds that the father impedes the enforcement process. The temporary order as well is appealed by the father and based on that purpose, the father submitted a new rule of parent-child relationship, which is under review and the parties are waiting for the results. We won't allow the mother to kidnap the child, who is now protected by the law in Georgia. We won't allow the fake information to be spread around the case, when there is no factual and legal prerequisites for the father not to have his child with him, as based on the Social Service Agency's report, there is a high quality of the minor's attachment with her father. The minor can't think of the development and living without her father. On top of that, I am giving the information to the society, that on 5th February 2020 we, all together (Mother, Social Service Agency, Law enforcements) met with the minor in her place of residence and nowadays, the mother's relationship with her child is restricted due to the threats of new coronavirus, as she doesn't communicate with the third parties. From my side, the detailed information was given towards the mother and her representative, about the above mentioned threats and conditions.

I would like to tell the society that after getting acquainted with Maia Asatiani's show, the family shows concernabout the actions of the minor's mother and notes out, that this steps aren't in accordance with the child's interests taken by the parent, who takes care of her child. We are entitled, to focus on the factual circumstances beyond the current dispute in the Tbilisi Court of Appeals. In spite of the fact, that the under-aged kid must have all the conditions to be safe and therefore, to be with her father in a trustworthy situation, the mother chose such kind of communication form, that serves the father with a hostile environment and inferior relationships to formulate. For example, the mother tells to her child that "she will do her best to send father to jail"; "She will soon bring him back to the Republic of Cyprus"; "Father has three houses and he will get money if he sells them"; "Grandmother looks like a monkey" and so on. After all these dialogues, the minor refuses to have communication with her mother, despite the rule of relationship established by the court. For example, She in the police department, where the restraining order towards the mother due to the psychological violence was written, said that she is a "cruel mother", which has been researched as an indisputable evidence by the court - Administrative Cases Panel of Tbilisi City Court, 21 November 2019. (Unfortunately, against the minor's mother, Georgian police for the three times took decision to use restraining order, 2 times - for the conflict with her husband, and 1 time - for the psychological violence). Moreover, it is required for the justice to say, that the court annulled the restraining order only on the grounds that the 22/10/2019 temporary order of Tbilisi City Court wasn't amended, and not on the grounds, that there was no psychological violence from the mother's side or for not having the above mentioned controversial phrases quoted.

The mother submitted the photos to the court, where the father in the hygienic way bathes her child and accused the father of pornography. On November 21, 2019, the Georgian court took that document out of the case and indicated on the immoral intentions. Despite the positions of the court, the mother submitted the same document to the police and requested the same. In the police there is a case of submitting and preparing the fake documents to the court, concerning the employment contract in Cyprus and the disputed rental agreements. Based on my efforts, the documents was submitted to the court, which confirms, that by the minor's parents there has been a fact of submitting fake document to the court. Moreover, Prosecutor's Office of Autonomous Republic of Adjara reviews the case of kidnapping the father and his child in the August 2019 from Martvili, where the questions had been arisen towards the minor's mother. The proper agencies of Georgia rejected to start cases on the demand of the mother not due to carelessness, but due to the fact that all the demands were groundless. The circumstances and challenges didn't contain any signs of criminal offense. 

We don't have a legally enforceable decision of the court of Georgia to talk about various issues in an affirmative form, but we have Czech Republic's legally enforceable decision of 2019, which directly indicates, that the mother against the father's wishes but on his expenses flew to Amsterdam, where she wanted to try a new type of marijuana. In the judgment of the European Court, Olivia Antony's responsibilities as a mother, is estimated as an extremely negative.

In the end, I disagree with actions of the mother's representative, who facilitated the public discussions of the closed court hearings and the fact of TV clarifying the private life. Moreover, my colleague violates the personal data and confidentiality. She shares photos of the child on her social page, spreads false information, insults the father, repeats the false information about him, that doesn't come from the five tome of the case presented on her desk. That's unfortunate in the terms,  when a lawyer is a chairman of one of the leading committee in the Georgian Bar Association. Unfortunately, she failed to draw a clear line between the client and her professional duties. On December 10, 2019, in the Tbilisi Court of Appeals she showed an offensive attitude towards me in a completely harmless environment mentioned, that I was disgracing her profession. For the 10 years of experience in my profession, that what the first time I was encountered with such a statement. And I didn't continue the case due to the overcrowded situation in the Ethics committee. Before and even today, my speech is completely out of emotion - dear ladies and gentlemen, legal proceedings shall be conducted based on adversarial principles.

Parties shall enjoy equal rights and opportunities to substantiate their claims, reject or extinguish claims, opinions or evidence presented by the other party. Parties shall determine on their own on which facts their claims must be based, or which evidence must be used to verify those facts. In front of us is psycho-emotionally tired child because of the family dispute, her rights and interests, which need to be cared and jointly protected. My emotions can be controlled, but I don't wish anyone to test my emotions, as maybe not only emotions will be left out of this test. Lets together try to make the minor's child respect the Georgian Judiciary System and do not mislead the society.

Her aim shouldn't no longer be to humiliate her husband's name, honor and business reputation, as he is a businessman in different countries. For me, that case is priority, but not the only one. Not the legal service fee (which was so worthless appealed), but the intelligence wins the case. Personally, all of my cases, on which there are public interest, requires integrity, rejecting the hidden agreements (which, unfortunately, are much in our profession) and going smoothly towards the goal. All the track of lies ends in the courtroom and the result is the final decision of the court. We, despite all the false and correct rumors, will make a decent move on that path, as everyone should remember it well that - For me the rights of the child isn't a show."