Laura specialises in public law proceedings including care, supervision, adoption and where the High Court’s authorisation is sought to deprive a child or young person of their liberty. She is regularly instructed in cases involving allegations of inflicted injury, chronic neglect, substance misuse and domestic abuse and has experience of dealing with cases involving parents with learning disabilities, young and inexperienced parents and parents with mental health difficulties.
Laura provides realistic and straightforward advice, combined with an approachable, sympathetic style. Laura has a reputation for her thorough preparation of the papers.
Family Law: Children's Law
Overview
Laura specialises in public law proceedings including care, supervision and adoption. She has represented children’s services in cases involving non-accidental injury, chronic neglect, substance misuse, mental health, domestic violence, physical and emotional abuse, parents with severe learning disabilities, young and inexperienced parents and adoptive parents with teenage children beyond their control.
Laura has been instructed in cases with international elements, including transfer of jurisdiction. She has experience in conducting CMHs, contested interim care order hearings and final hearings.
Laura is an experienced advocate in care proceedings, emergency protection proceedings, applications for secure accommodation orders, recovery orders, wardship and other orders under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, deprivation of liberty applications, special guardianship applications, placement orders and orders in adoption proceedings (including applications for leave to oppose), designation disputes between local authorities and in private law proceedings where there is local authority involvement.
Notable Cases
T and J (Children) [2020] EWCA Civ 1344
Represented the local authority (led by King’s Counsel) in an appeal by a mother against findings made in the care proceedings.
H-M (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 748
Represented the local authority (led by King’s Counsel) in a mother’s second appeal relating to a fact-finding hearing. The criminal proceedings and the family proceedings had reached incongruent outcomes, in that the mother was in the family court’s pool of perpetrators but was exonerated of causing injury in the criminal court. Jackson LJ’s judgment upheld the lower court’s decision to refuse her application to reopen and set out the proper approach when criminal and family court outcomes are incongruent.
