G (Finding of Fact Hearing: Resuscitative Shake) [2022] EWFC B6

21st January 2022

Link to case

G (Finding of Fact Hearing: Resuscitative Shake) [2022] EWFC B6 (21 January 2022)

In this case, the court addressed allegations of non-accidental injury to a child, specifically concerning a resuscitative shake. The central issue was whether the child’s injuries, which included head trauma, were caused by an intentional act or were the result of an accident. A finding of fact hearing was held to determine the cause of the injuries.

The court heard evidence from both parties, including medical testimony, which suggested that the injuries were likely caused by the mother’s attempt to resuscitate the child. The evidence indicated that the injuries resulted from a resuscitative shake, rather than intentional harm.

Makin Dixon Solicitors represented the father in the case, arguing that the mother’s actions were not deliberate and that there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of abuse. The father’s legal team successfully demonstrated that the injuries were accidental, which led to a favorable outcome for the father.

The court’s judgment reinforced the importance of detailed medical evaluation and expert testimony in cases involving suspected child abuse. Makin Dixon’s effective representation ensured that the father’s position was thoroughly supported and ultimately led to the dismissal of the allegations against him.

[2022] EWHC 1429 (Fam)

25th May 2022

Link to case

B v N [2022] EWHC 1429 (Fam) (25 May 2022)

In B v N, the High Court dealt with a complex matter involving the financial settlement between a divorcing couple. The key issue in the case was the determination of a fair and equitable distribution of assets, including the division of property, maintenance, and pensions. Both parties had significant financial resources, and the proceedings focused on how these assets should be divided in a way that ensured fairness, considering the needs and contributions of both parties.

Makin Dixon Solicitors played a crucial role in representing the husband in this case. The firm’s expert legal team successfully argued for a financial settlement that reflected the client’s contributions and financial needs. Makin Dixon’s involvement in providing strategic legal advice and expert representation ensured that the husband’s position was strongly presented in court.

The High Court ultimately ruled in favour of the husband’s position, with a financial settlement that was seen as fair under the circumstances. The case was significant not only for the complex financial issues it involved but also for the successful resolution of the dispute with Makin Dixon’s skilled representation.

M v D (Family Law Act 1996 : Meaning of “Associated Person”) [2021] EWHC 1351 (Fam)

21st May 2021

Link to case

M v D (Family Law Act 1996: Meaning of “Associated Person”) [2021] EWHC 1351 (Fam) (21 May 2021)

In M v D, the High Court considered the interpretation of “associated person” under the Family Law Act 1996, a key point in determining whether the claimant could seek protection under domestic violence legislation. The case centered around whether the parties’ relationship met the legal definition of “associated persons,” which is necessary for applying for orders such as non-molestation or occupation orders. The claimant argued that their relationship with the defendant fell within this definition, while the defendant contested this, arguing there was no legal basis for the application.

Makin Dixon Solicitors played a pivotal role in representing the claimant, providing expert advice and legal representation in a case involving nuanced issues of domestic abuse law. The firm’s legal team carefully argued that the relationship between the parties did meet the criteria of “associated persons” under the Act, ensuring the claimant’s legal right to seek protection.

The court ruled in favor of the claimant, affirming the interpretation of “associated person” and granting the appropriate protection under the Family Law Act. Makin Dixon’s strategic representation was key to achieving this favourable outcome.

Cumbria County Council v AT & Ors [2020] EWHC 3107 (Fam)

16th November 2020

Link to case

Cumbria County Council v AT & Ors [2020] EWHC 3107 (Fam) (16 November 2020)

In Cumbria County Council v AT & Ors, the High Court addressed complex care proceedings involving a child who was subject to an emergency protection order due to concerns about potential harm. The key issue in the case was whether the child should remain in local authority care or be returned to the parents’ custody, given concerns about their ability to provide appropriate care.

Makin Dixon Solicitors played a vital role in representing the father in these proceedings. The firm’s legal team provided expert advice and crafted a robust defense, challenging the local authority’s case that the child was at significant risk in the parents’ care. Makin Dixon’s careful handling of the case focused on presenting alternative solutions and mitigating the risks identified by the local authority.

The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the father, determining that the child should be returned to the family, with ongoing support and safeguards in place. Makin Dixon’s representation ensured that the father’s parental rights were protected, and the outcome was a testament to their strategic and thorough approach to complex family law cases.

X (A Child), Re [2019] EWHC 479 (Fam)

27th February 2019

Link to case

In X (A Child), Re, the High Court considered a complex case involving a child subject to care proceedings. The local authority had concerns about the child’s safety in their current living arrangement, leading to a review of the child’s welfare and whether they should remain with their parents or be placed into care. The case raised difficult questions about the parents’ ability to meet the child’s needs and the potential risks involved.

Makin Dixon Solicitors played a crucial role in representing the parents throughout the proceedings. The firm’s legal team provided comprehensive legal support, ensuring that the parents’ rights were fully protected and that all evidence was carefully reviewed. Makin Dixon’s skilled representation also included challenging the local authority’s position and advocating for alternative solutions that would allow the child to remain in the family home under suitable supervision.

The court ultimately determined that the child should remain with the parents, with ongoing support and monitoring in place. Makin Dixon’s expert legal representation was instrumental in securing this outcome, highlighting their expertise in handling sensitive and complex care proceedings.

TG (A Child : location order and disclosure orders) [2017] EWHC 514 (Fam)

15th February 2017

Link to case

TG (A Child: Location Order and Disclosure Orders) [2017] EWHC 514 (Fam) (15 February 2017)

In TG (A Child: Location Order and Disclosure Orders), the High Court addressed a case involving a child who had been removed from the care of a parent, with concerns regarding the child’s safety and well-being. The case centred around whether a location order and disclosure orders should be granted to assist in locating the child and ensuring their welfare. The local authority had serious concerns about the whereabouts of the child, who was believed to be at risk.

Makin Dixon Solicitors played a pivotal role in representing the child’s father during the proceedings. The firm’s legal team argued against the application for the location and disclosure orders, presenting a case that challenged the necessity and proportionality of such orders in the specific circumstances. Makin Dixon’s team effectively worked to protect the father’s rights and ensure that any actions taken were in the best interest of the child.

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the father’s position, placing restrictions on the location and disclosure orders sought by the local authority. Makin Dixon’s strategic and thoughtful representation played a critical role in the outcome of the case.

C v K [2014] EWHC 4125 (Fam)

4th December 2014

Link to case

C v K [2014] EWHC 4125 (Fam) (04 December 2014)

In C v K, the High Court addressed a highly sensitive family law issue involving the custody and care arrangements for a child. The case centered around disputes between the parents over the child’s welfare and the appropriateness of living arrangements. The local authority had concerns about the child’s safety and well-being, prompting a review of the care plan and whether the child should remain in the care of one or both parents.

Makin Dixon Solicitors played a critical role in representing the father throughout the proceedings. The firm’s legal team worked diligently to challenge the local authority’s concerns, providing expert legal advice and presenting a robust case that the father was capable of providing a safe and stable home for the child. Makin Dixon’s lawyers effectively argued that the child’s best interests would be best served by being placed with the father, highlighting his ability to meet the child’s needs.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the father, allowing the child to remain with him under a carefully structured care plan. Makin Dixon’s thorough and effective representation was instrumental in securing a positive outcome for the father and the child.