Cases Archive

Joan Connell represented the mother in a case which evolved from private law proceedings into care proceedings following a long running dispute between the parents over who should care for and spend time with the children. Allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour were made by the mother against the father with regard to his behaviour towards her and the children but were not found proven. There were difficulties with expert evidence and the Court determined that the psychological report was not reliable and should be disregarded. The Court criticised professionals for adopting allegations as if proven facts. The mother accepted that she was not in a position to care for the children. The Court placed the children with their father contrary to the recommendations of the local authority and two Children’s Guardian’s. In doing so the Court determined that it was making “the least worst option, neither [of which] is ideal”.

Joan Connell represented the children through their Children’s Guardian in care proceedings involving serious allegations of sexual abuse of two teenage girls by their step-father. The allegations included the rape of one of the girls over a number of years and the sexual assault of the other girl. Criminal proceedings involving the same allegations had resulted in a not guilty verdict on the most serious allegations. The family court found the allegations proven in their entirety at a fact finding hearing with evidence given over 12 days. The case involved Re W argument as to whether the girls should give evidence, having previously given evidence in the Crown Court. Complications arose as a result of the mother’s significant vulnerabilities which required her evidence to be given over the course of several days. The final hearing involved consideration of the psychological and welfare needs of one of the children as a survivor of abuse. The proceedings in relation to the other child are continuing.

New reported case for Alex Aspinwall. This private children case concerned an application for contact following earlier findings of domestic abuse. The judgment considers the application of PD12J and the need to manage risk when determining contact arrangements pending completion of a DAPP course.

Michael Glaser KC successfully represented the Husband in new important case, fully upholding a pre-nuptial agreement and proving that the Wife had stolen document to prevent it being applied.

View PDF

Alex Aspinwall appeared in the reported matter of AB v CD [2025] EWHC 3657 (Fam) heard before Mr Justice Williams in November 2025. Alex was instructed by the team at Dawson Cornwell.

The proceedings raised interesting issues as to what weight should be attributed to allegations made by a child to professionals and/or parent. Alex succeeded in establishing that significant weight should be given to a child’s allegations for the reasons set out at 37(vii) of the judgment. In particular, Alex pointed to the way in which the child’s allegations were (a) pleaded consistently, (b) pleaded to a number of individuals over an extended period of time and (c) corroborated by their later refusal of contact with the father.

The court made numerous findings of domestic abuse against the respondent including numerous instances of physical and emotional abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. Those findings informed the welfare assessment and led to a Child Arrangements Order limited to contact in this jurisdiction.

Seema Kansal & Dominic Brazil represented the respondent Father in the High Court in reported case ‘A Mother (Appeal: Alienating Behaviours: Fair Procedure) [2026] EWHC 783 (Fam) (31 March 2026)’

See link: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2026/783.pdf

Clare Bishop 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. A successful appeal in the High Court against the judge’s order for a final order to be made at a DRA.

James Mulholland instructed by Ruth Sharon of Boardman Hawkins & Osborne LLP represented a mother in a matter where the Local Authority sought final care and placement orders in respect of 4 children. The mother and Guardian sought for the children to be placed in to long term foster care for the duration of their minority. The Court determined that the children should remain in long term foster care and declined to make any placement orders.