Joy accepts instructions across the full ambit of family law. Joy regularly acts in proceedings concerning public and private children, financial remedies, family committal and applications for protective orders under the Family Law Act 1996. 

Private Law

Joy has extensive experience in cases involving child arrangements. Joy is regularly instructed in cases concerning complex and serious issues of parental alienation, domestic abuse, appointment of a rule 16.4 Guardian and internal and external relocation. Joy is often commended by clients and members of the judiciary for her rigorous case analysis, sensitive client handling and persuasive advocacy.

Recent Cases

• A v A (Milton Keynes Family Court)- representation of a mother in private law proceedings. Serious allegations of child sexual abuse and rape were made against a vulnerable father with learning difficulties, serious mental health conditions, and substance abuse issues. Commendation was received from the judge for management of the complex case and vulnerable / child witness handling.
• W v H v CG (Medway Family Court) - Representation of the applicant mother who had been in a same sex relationship with the respondent mother. Complex legal issues arose around the existence of parental responsibility for the respondent mother and whether she could be deemed to be the other parent pursuant to section 42 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. 
• P v C (Dartford County Court) - representation of mother from the outset to conclusion of private law proceedings. The mother made serious allegations of domestic abuse against the father. All allegations were found in the mother’s favour at fact find hearing, bar one. Commendation was received from the judge for oral and written advocacy.
• A v C (Horsham County Court) – Representation of applicant father on a direct access basis in enforcement proceedings. The mother was represented by a KC and sought for the application to be summarily dismissed, the imposition of a section 91(14) order and costs. The court acceded with the father’s submissions for the order to be varied, a penal notice to be imposed, and the mother’s astronomical costs refused. 

Public Law

Joy has a well-established public law practice, and accepts instructions for local authorities, parents and children’s guardians from the outset to conclusion of care proceedings. Joy has been instructed in lengthy and complex cases involving a range of matters including, non-accidental injury, child sexual abuse, emotional and psychological harm, neglect, substance misuse, domestic abuse, and concurrent criminal proceedings. 

Joy’s practice also encompasses matters before the High Court, including multi-jurisdictional cases and applications for deprivation of liberty.

Recent Cases

• LBOE v D (West London Family Court) - Representation of paternal grandparents in care proceedings. The parents were alleged to be involved in human trafficking and were subject to criminal prosecution. At final hearing, the court was persuaded to impose a supervision order for the children to remain in the care of their mother and paternal grandparents in the family home.
• LBOL v C (Central London Family Court) - Received commendation for representation of an extremely vulnerable mother in care proceedings. The mother had a diagnosis of autism, history of psychosis and mild learning difficulty, and was aided by an intermediary throughout the proceedings. 
• HCC v M (Watford County Court) (Reported) - Representation of mother in care proceedings. Notwithstanding strong opposition being raised by the Children’s Guardian, the court acceded with submissions for the children to remain in the parents care under the auspices of a supervision order.
• LBOL v A (Central Family court) – Representation of a father in care proceedings. The children were removed from the Nigerian parents care on an interim basis due to concerns about the use of harmful cultural practices. The successful use of culturally sensitive experts led to the family being reunified at the conclusion of proceedings.

Family Law Act

Joy is an experienced advocate in cases concerning applications for protective orders under the Family Law Act 1996. 

Recent Cases

• S v O (Barnet Family Court) - Successfully aided the respondent in discharging a Non-Molestation Order at final hearing.
• T v T (Kingston County Court) - Successfully secured a non-molestation order for the applicant daughter who had faced unrelenting molestation from the respondent mother. The applicant was particularly vulnerable due to her learning difficulties.
• A v A (Barnet Family Court) - Case concerning serious allegations of domestic abuse. After hearing evidence, the Judge acceded with submissions for the imposition of a non-molestation order and occupation order.

Financial remedies

Joy has a growing financial remedies practice and is instructed in all stages of the process, from First Appointments to FDRs and Final hearings. Joy accepts instructions to advise clients on claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, and Schedule 1 Children Act 1989.

Recent Cases 

• I v I – (Croydon Family Court) - Successfully represented the respondent wife at a financial remedies final hearing. The applicant’s case was dismissed, and it was determined that there was to be a clean break between the parties.
• R v R (Romford Family Court) – detailed and thorough representation of the applicant husband at a Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment. The judge gave a strong indication against the wife’s request for deferred sale of the property and acceded with the submission for equal division of the wife’s pension provision. 
• C v C v A (Cambridge County Court) – Representation of an intervener who claimed to have an interest in matrimonial assets. Complex questions where raises about the validity of agreements entered in to between the intervenor and respondent husband, whether the court could be satisfied that there was an existence of a beneficial interest via constructive trust, and whether the disposition of £50,0000 to the intervener was a reviewable disposition pursuant to section 37 MCA 1975.