Re E [2023] Clare successfully argued against a relocation to Australia which would sever the relationship between the child and the father, despite the father only having sporadic contact with the child prior to the application.

Re B [2023] Clare represented the respondent mother in a highly charged parental conflict case where the father had retained the younger child and refused all contact between the mother and her older siblings due to apparent welfare concerns. A 16.4 Guardian was appointed due to the level of parental acrimony. Clare successfully argued for the child to be returned to the mother’s care with only limited contact with the father.

In LA v KA [2024] EWHC 2258 (Fam) Clare represented the applicant Father appealing on child arrangements. This was a difficult judgment as, in the words of the judge, the ‘parents are at daggers drawn’. A pragmatic way forwards was made through holding orders allowing 2 weeks’ Summer holidays contact for the Father and alternative Fridays to Tuesdays during term times. The judge also dealt with handover arrangements, given disagreements on where this should be. This issues will be further addressed at the final hearing.

Re P [2024] Clare represented the mother in care proceedings for a 2 week old baby where she successfully persuaded the court not to make an ICO but to seek further enquiries from the Local Authority due to the deficiencies in their care plan. This included challenging the Local Authority as to why they had sought to issue care proceedings, when there were no concerns about the mother prior to the birth.

Re L [2023] Clare acted for the applicant husband in financial remedy proceedings where there were very limited assets. A complicating feature was that the applicant husband had been previously married and although they were legally divorced most of the martial assets remained in the first wife’s name. There had never been any financial remedy proceedings in relation to the first wife. Clare successfully argued for a proportionate approach to be taken, given the very limited assets, and resisted the former wife being joined to these proceedings.

Re M [2023] Clare acted for the respondent mother in a case brought under the Hague Convention for the child to return to France. Clare successfully argued that the case should not have been brought under the Hague Convention and due to the delay in bringing the proceedings the father had consented to the move. The father’s application was dismissed.

LA v KA [2024] EWHC 2258 (Fam) Clare represented the applicant Father appealing on child arrangements. This was a difficult judgment as, in the words of the judge, the ‘parents are at daggers drawn’. A pragmatic way forwards was made through holding orders allowing 2 weeks’ Summer holidays contact for the Father and alternative Fridays to Tuesdays during term times. The judge also dealt with handover arrangements, given disagreements on where this should be. This issues will be further addressed at the final hearing.

Re P [2024] Clare represented the mother in care proceedings for a 2 week old baby where she successfully persuaded the court not to make an ICO but to seek further enquiries from the Local Authority due to the deficiencies in their care plan. This included challenging the Local Authority as to why they had sought to issue care proceedings, when there were no concerns about the mother prior to the birth.

Re M [2023] Clare acted for the respondent mother in a case brought under the Hague Convention for the child to return to France. Clare successfully argued that the case should not have been brought under the Hague Convention and due to the delay in bringing the proceedings the father had consented to the move. The father’s application was dismissed.

Re L [2023] Clare acted for the applicant husband in financial remedy proceedings where there were very limited assets. A complicating feature was that the applicant husband had been previously married and although they were legally divorced most of the martial assets remained in the first wife’s name. There had never been any financial remedy proceedings in relation to the first wife. Clare successfully argued for a proportionate approach to be taken, given the very limited assets, and resisted the former wife being joined to these proceedings.

Re E [2023] Clare successfully argued against a relocation to Australia which would sever the relationship between the child and the father, despite the father only having sporadic contact with the child prior to the application.

Re B [2023] Clare represented the respondent mother in a highly charged parental conflict case where the father had retained the younger child and refused all contact between the mother and her older siblings due to apparent welfare concerns. A 16.4 Guardian was appointed due to the level of parental acrimony. Clare successfully argued for the child to be returned to the mother’s care with only limited contact with the father.