Zoe Saunders successfully represented the father in this matter at final hearing in the High Court, resisting an application for leave to permanently remove the child to Kazakhstan. Zoe has particular expertise in cases involving an

Asha represented the local authority at this IRH when there was unexplained bruising to the non mobile baby following the parents leaving the parent and child placement, the court having found in relation to a previous

Asha represented the mother in this complex multi day private law fact finding hearing. She secured multiple findings against the father of significant verbal and physical abuse and rape. The judge commended Asha for her written

Asha represented the father at this final hearing before the DFJ following a fact finding hearing when her client was found to have inflicted serious brain damage on one of the children. She drafted a skeleton

Asha represented the mother in this private law matter when the s7 author had concluded that she was alienating the child from her father and a transfer of residence could be considered.

Delia acted for the second respondent and was instructed by Haines and Lewis.

Lucy Reed acted for the prospective adopters of a boy placed for adoption apart from his twin, following egregious failures in local authority decision making and multiple systemic failures in record keeping, and in the care

Asha represented the local authority in this 5 day final hearing in care proceedings concerning allegations of inflicted injury. Asha secured significant findings against both parents in line with the evidence of the child.

Abigail Bond represented the local authority in care proceedings in the High Court arising out of an acrimonious long-running private law dispute between the parents of a 12 year old girl, in which the mother had

Lucy Reed acted for the child in a case in which difficulties with the quality of expert evidence led to the adjournment of a final hearing, and where the District Judge’s judgment regarding that expert evidence

Asha successfully challenged the author of a section 7 report in cross examination and persuaded the magistrates to adopt a drastically different approach than that recommended by the Cafcass officer. The court ruled that the father