Public and Private Law
Jane is an experienced practitioner used to handling cases of particular complexity regularly acting for and advising Local Authorities, parents and Children’s Guardians in public and private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989 and in placement and adoption cases. She has also acted for separately represented teenage clients in sensitive and difficult cases.
Jane appears regularly in the High Court as well as before circuit and district judges. She has appeared in a number of Court of Appeal cases. The work she undertakes involves cases of the most serious nature including allegations of serious physical and sexual abuse and factitious illness. She is frequently instructed in cases involving parents and children suffering from learning difficulties and developmental disabilities (e.g. autism and Asperger syndrome), forms of mental illness and serious psychological problems.
Jane is often instructed in cases involving other jurisdictions and immigration issues, including cases involving applications to remove children from the jurisdiction. Her theological background and training brings extra knowledge and understanding to cases involving religious and cultural complexities.
Jane’s work also includes applications made under the Inherent Jurisdiction and Human Rights legislation and medical treatment cases. She has been recommended as an expert in children’s cases over several years.
J V B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender): Acted for the children in the case of a transgender parent who was seeking contact to her five children after leaving her family and their Charedi Jewish community to live as a woman.
RY v Southend Borough Council  EWHC 2509 (Fam) (22 May 2015): Representing the local authority in a successful application for the return of a child who had been placed for adoption.
B-C & Others  EWHC 2997 (Fam): This case concerned whether a local UK court should make a request pursuant to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the courts in Portugal to assume jurisdiction in relation to children currently resident in the UK in respect of whom care proceeding had been commenced by the local authority. Jane was instructed by the Children’s Guardian.
A (A Child), Re (Rev 1)  EWCOP 920,  EWHC 920: Medical treatment case involving applications by an NHS Foundation Trust for declarations regarding the feeding and treatment of a teenage girl and the sanctioning of the use of reasonable force in respect thereof. The case also involved issues relating to the teenage child’s capacity to consent to medical treatment. Jane was instructed on behalf of the local authority in the proceedings.
S (A child acting by the Official Solicitor) v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and The Independent Reviewing Officer 2008 EWHC 3283 (Fam) 2009 1 FLR 1090: The case involved a claim for relief under the Human Rights Act 1998 by a teenage child against the local authority and independent reviewing officer following an initial failure by the local authority to issue care proceedings. The court approved a compromise between the parties which included a confidentiality clause but attached for public record concerns expressed by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the child. Jane appeared as Junior Counsel for the Official Solicitor.
BBC v Rochdale MBC and X and Y  EWHC 2862 (Fam), 2007 1 FLR 101: A case involving applications by a local authority and two social workers for injunctions to restrain publication of the identities of the social workers at a time when the children involved in earlier wardship proceedings had reached adulthood. The court identified the approach to be taken in such applications following the Human Rights Act 1998 where different Convention rights were engaged. Jane appeared on behalf of one of the social workers.
Re P (Section 91 (14) (Guidelines) Residence and Religious Heritage)1999 2 FLR 573: A leading authority in which the Court of Appeal held that on any question relating to the upbringing of a child, the religious and cultural heritage of the child was a relevant consideration, being part of the child’s background to be considered under the Children Act 1989, s1(3)(d) and in which the court laid down guidelines to be followed in cases involving applications under section 91(14) for orders restricting future applications without leave. Jane appeared as Junior Counsel on behalf of the foster parents.
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v. D 1995 1 FLR 873,1995 Fam Law 405: A case involving the procedure to be followed where parents had made admissions sufficient to establish the threshold criteria in care proceedings. The court held that it was contrary to public interest to prolong proceedings in order to resolve differences as to the expression of essential concessions and that the terminology used by the parents should be adopted by the court rather than that employed by the local authority. Jane was instructed on behalf of the child.