Matthew Carey

Public Law

Matthew is regularly instructed to represent parents, children, local authorities and extended family members, including grandparents, in public law children proceedings. He has successfully represented parents and family members that have resulted in successful outcomes for the children being placed within their care.

He is frequently instructed in proceedings involving complex legal and factual issues, including serious non-accidental injuries to children, sexual abuse, fabricated or induced illness (FII), perplexing presentations, catastrophic and fatal injuries to children and siblings, long-term and chronic neglect, cases involving mental health, adoption, human trafficking, international child protection issues, relocation and allegations of alienating behaviours.

Matthew also has experience in cases engaging the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, including wardship proceedings and applications concerning the deprivation of liberty of children.

Cases

A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 84 (B): Before HHJ Hesford, representing a mother in care proceedings involving allegations of non accidental injuries to a six months baby who sustained a fracture to her skull and haemorrhaging. The judgment is available here: A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 84 (B)

A Council v Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 33 (B): Before HHJ Hesford, led by Lorna Meyer KC, represented a mother in care proceedings. Following a finding of fact, which involved allegations of inflicted injuries and failure to protect successfully resisted with findings made against the father. The matter involved a baby who was a matter of weeks old when she sustained catastrophic injuries resulting in lifelong disabilities. Serious injuries included fractures, intracranial bleeding and retinal haemorrhaging. The Court found that the mother to be a loving and caring parent who had sought medical attention appropriately and not recognised the father’s conduct. The judgment is available here: A Council v Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 33 (B).

Re N (a child) (death of sibling), [2025] EWFC 325

Before Lieven J, led by Michael Jones KC, represented a father in care proceedings which arose in relation to the death of a sibling, whereby the Court determined the father inflicted the following injuries:

1. Subdural and subarachnoid bleeds over the brain and spine, together with traumatic axonal injury and global hypoxic-ischaemic brain damage;
2. Extensive retinal and optic nerve sheath haemorrhages;
3. Multiple bruises to the neck and head;
4. Multiple rib fractures inflicted between 1-6 hours before death
5. Older rib fractures inflicted approximately between 5-10 days before death.

The judgment is available here: Re N (a child) (death of sibling), [2025] EWFC 325.

In the matter of A, B & C [2025] EWFC 105 (B): Before HHJ Hesford, represented a mother in care proceedings. Successfully resisting interim care orders for the older siblings. At a finding of fact hearing, led by Lorna Meyer KC,  the Court considered a single issue of non accidental injuries that being posterior fractures to the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs on the right hand side and to the 7th rib on the left hand side.  Following a successful challenge to the medical evidence the local authority sought to withdraw as they could not discount the risk factors in relation to Metabolic Bone Disease of Prematurity. The local authority accepted it could not prove the facts of inflicted injury. The child was returned home to the care of the parents and siblings immediately. The judgment is available here: In the matter of A, B & C [2025] EWFC 105 (B).

Local authority v Mother & Ors [2025] EWFC 293 (B): The judgment is available here: Local authority v Mother & Ors [2025] EWFC 293 (B)

J, K, L & M, Re, [2025] EWFC 367 (B): Before HHJ Hesford, represented a mother in care proceedings, along with Kerry Holt, in a complex case involving allegations of sexual harm, rape, domestic abuse and failure to protect. Successfully resisted findings of specific sexual abuse albeit the court made findings in respect of the lack of sexual boundaries in the home generally. Successfully argued for a higher level of contact than originally proposed by the local authority. The judgment is available here: J, K, L & M, Re, [2025] EWFC 367 (B).

H and J (Placement Orders) [2024] EWCA Civ 429: On behalf of the children. Matthew successfully resisted an appeal against placement orders in relation to children aged nearly six and four who had relationships with older half-siblings. The appeal related to arguments whether the placement order was a conditional order and that there was a lack of consideration of the siblings relationship and family identity. Appeal refused. Baker J provided guidance at paragraph 26 as to the applicability of the ACA 2002 checklist when considering sibling relationships. The judgment is available here: H and J (Placement Orders) [2024] EWCA Civ 429.

W & Ors (Implementation of Adoption Plan Pending Appeal) [2024] EWCA Civ 837: Led by Michael Jones KC, on a pro bono basis, as instructed by Advocate, successfully appealing the original orders. The Grandparents (Matthew’s clients) were not represented in care proceedings. They appealed seeking to set aside care and placement orders on the basis that the court at first instance should have adjourned and ordered assessments of the grandparents, who were previous carers. The appeals were compromised at the door of the court, the Court of Appeal commented it would have allowed the appeals, and remitted the matter to the Family Court for a rehearing.

The COA gave guidance at paragraph 49 as to the approach of arranging farewell contact and proceedings with placement planning when appeals are pending. The judgment is available here: W & Ors (Implementation of Adoption Plan Pending Appeal) [2024] EWCA Civ 837.

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v C [2024] EWHC 3331 (Fam): Before Arbuthnot J, for the child. The Court was invited to exercise inherent jurisdiction to authorise restrictions of liberty but medical treatment, (the provision of insulin) to be administered without consent, without which the young person would die. The judgment is available here: Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v C [2024] EWHC 3331 (Fam).

M v F & Anor [2024] EWHC 723 (Fam) (14 February 2024): Appeal heard by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. Representing the child, supporting the mother’s appeal a fact-finding judgment. The mother appealed the lower Court’s refusal to find an allegation of rape based on the wrong legal principles being applied. The appeal was granted and the matter was remitted for re-hearing of those allegations. The judgment is available here: M v F & Anor [2024] EWHC 723 (Fam) (14 February 2024).

In the Matter of K (Revocation or Adoption: A Declaratory Judgment) [2023] EWFC 267 (B): Before HHJ Sharpe. Represented the mother who was seeking to revoke a placement order, pursuant to the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The Court provided a declaratory judgment having heard legal argument about the status of the child, whether she was placed or not, which was needed to determine the legal framework that proceedings were heard. The Court agreed with the legal argument advanced on behalf of the mother, declaring the child had not been placed by the placing authority, thereby allowing the mother continue with her application. The judgment is available here: In the Matter of K (Revocation or Adoption: A Declaratory Judgment) [2023] EWFC 267 (B).

Local Authority v S & Ors [2023] EWFC 85: Instructed by Ruth Hetherington of McAlister Family Law, Matthew Carey (leading junior) and Kerry Holt, represented a father at a final hearing in care proceedings who was exonerated of allegations of serious sexual abuse against his 9-year-old daughter.

The Court made findings that, in fact, the mother had actively sought to undermine the relationship between the father and daughter, that the daughter was influenced by the mother to make the allegations of sexual abuse against her father, that the mother promoted an abuse narrative within the home and that the mother misrepresented events and the descriptions of the child’s presentation to professionals.

Additionally, the Court did not make any findings against the father in relation to the additional allegations the mother sought against him of significant emotional harm to the child. Matthew represented the father in private law proceedings in 2020 before care proceedings were issued. The judgment is available here: Local Authority v S & Ors [2023] EWFC 85.

Tameside MBC v C (Unavailability of Regulated Therapeutic Placement) [2021] EWHC 1814 (Fam): Represented the local authority in a case where there was a challenge as to whether the Court could or should authorise a deprivation of liberty where an unregulated placement is not meeting the child’s complex needs but there are no alternative options. The judgment contains an important distillation of the application and interaction of best interest’s principles, necessity and safety and Articles 5 and 8 ECHR when the Court is authorising a deprivation of liberty of a young person. The judgment is available here: Tameside MBC v C (Unavailability of Regulated Therapeutic Placement) [2021] EWHC 1814 (Fam).

In the Matter of the Adoption of Children Act 2002 and in the Matter of C (Children) (Revocation of Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 1598: Represented the local authority at first instance. After a multi-day final hearing, HHJ Sharpe dismissed the mother’s application to revoke a placement order after leave had been granted under section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Led by Lorraine Cavanagh KC on appeal, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to address the applicable principles to an application to revoke a placement order after leave has been granted. The mother’s appeal was unsuccessful. The judgment is available here.

LA v I 2021: Led by Edward Devereux QC, represented a father in a case involving 16 days of contested evidence. The case involved cultural aspects, allegations of excessive chastisement of the children including use of implements, sexual abuse between siblings and domestic abuse. Involved inherent jurisdiction injunctions in the High Court. Case concluded successfully with children rehabilitated to their parents care.

LA v E 2021: Represented the child in the High Court, during care proceedings involving the death of a sibling.

LA v I 2020: Led by Lorraine Cavanagh KC, represented a father during care proceedings. Successfully contested the removal of a baby from her parents. The court had already sanctioned removal following two earlier removal hearing by telephone and video link supported by the Guardian. Issues of procedural unfairness, failure to apply the removal test and breach of human rights for the parents and child enabled the hearing to be fully litigated which resulted with the return of the baby to her parents as it was accepted by the local authority that the removal test was not met. Case concluded with baby in her parents care.

LA v B 2020: Led by Karl Rowley KC, in the High Court, represented a mother during a 17-day final hearing. The case involved allegations of fabricated induced illness, rape by the mother against the father, sexual abuse between siblings, domestic abuse between the parents, failure to protect, beyond parental control, and deprivation of liberty orders for the older children during proceedings.

LA v H 2020: Represented the local authority, whereby findings of non-accidental injuries to the baby were found to be caused by the parents.

LA v T 2020: Represented a father, successfully resisted allegations of sexual abuse of children. Successfully argued implacable hostility to father and successful transfer of residence. Case concluded with children at home with father.

LA v R 2020: Represented a mother in care proceedings. Allegations of children trafficking dismissed. Involved jurisdictional issues. Case concluded with children rehabilitated to their parents care with no statutory order.

Lancashire CC v TP & Others (Permission to Withdraw Care Proceedings) [2019] EWFC 30: Williams J sets out guidance on leave to withdraw care proceedings and the difficulty and complexity of dealing with transgender children and the understanding of professionals of best practice in such cases. The judgment is available here.

Private Children

Matthew is regularly instructed in complex private law proceedings in relation to the arrangements for children following parental separation. Matthew is experienced in cases that involve domestic abuse, findings of fact hearings, parental alienation, intractable contact disputes, fabricated illnesses, internal/international relocation, change to the children’s school and also within enforcement proceedings.

• Vulnerable Witness Advocacy Training

• Otto Rix Scholarship (Inner Temple)
• Lancaster University Law School Prize

• Family Bar Association
• Association of Lawyers for Children
• Child Concern
• Amicus ALJ
• Northern Circuit

• Accredited for Direct Public Access instructions

“Matthew is a very trusted, capable pair of hands to leave your case in. He is extremely professional and competent, his advocacy skills have been observed to be excellent, and he builds a good rapport with clients, particularly vulnerable clients.” Legal 500 2025

“I was first recommended to seek Mr Carey’s guidance at the beginning of what was a complex case. Mr Carey has guided me through some extremely challenging times in both private law and subsequent care proceedings. It was clear to me from his dedication that Mr Carey really cared about my case. Thank you Matthew for helping me to achieve the best possible result for my child!” – Client

“I have instructed Matthew in a number of complex private and public law children cases. I have always been extremely impressed at the service received. Matthew is incredibly client-focused and approachable yet has a thorough knowledge of the law and procedures and gives the clients the reassurance they need. He has not only represented our clients in court with skill and professionalism but is also meticulous when preparing documentation. I have always been impressed with the prompt response from Matthew if I have ever needed any additional advice about a case. ” – Instructing Solicitor

“I was very impressed by Mr Carey’s attention to detail, drive and enthusiasm on a case involving allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, in which he obtained a very positive result after a multi-day final hearing. I was impressed by Mr Carey’s professionalism dealing with the client in a patient and sensitive manner.” – Instructing Solicitor

“Matthew is excellent in handling client emotion whilst remaining a robust negotiator and advocate. I would highly recommend.” – Instructing Solicitor

“Matthew is conscious of the vulnerability of my clients and I have been particularly impressed with his advocacy skills in the courtroom, the kindness and consideration he provides to both client and the client’s family members.” – Instructing Solicitor

“Both I and my client have been impressed with skills and willingness to go to the extra mile.” – Instructing Solicitor

“Matthew was really great with us and listened to us and I think represented us very well. We were really happy with him and would appreciate it if our thanks could be passed to him.” – Client