Shelly specialises in public children work, representing local authorities, parents, children and other family members or interested parties. Shelly’s cases involve the broad spectrum of child protection issues- chronic neglect, substance misuse, domestic abuse and coercive control, mental ill-health, excessive physical chastisement, sexual abuse, and inflicted injury and/or fabricated illness. Shelly is also instructed in DOLS and wardship applications.

Reported Cases

• O (Care Proceedings) [2024] EWCA Civ 696: Shelly represented the child through their guardian on an appeal by the child’s mother. The appeal was in respect of a decision by the trial judge - at a case management hearing after some of the evidence had been heard - to rule the mother out as being able to care for her child. The Court of Appeal determined the decision was unjust because of serious procedural irregularity.
• London Borough of Bexley v M & Ors (No 2) [2022] EWFC 220 (B): Shelly represented the mother led by Susan Campbell QC at the final hearing of a case in which significant findings of fabricated and induced illness had previously been found. After the completion of the expert evidence, the mother’s legal team had to withdraw.
• London Borough of Bexley v M & Ors (No 1) [2021] EWFC 131 (B): Shelly represented the mother led by Susan Campbell QC in respect of allegations of fabricated and induced illness heard over a 39-day fact-finding hearing. The judge found the mother had been responsible for the child’s malnourishment and had caused harm by interfering with and introducing fluids into feeding equipment and making false and exaggerated claims to medical staff about the child’s condition, which had prolonged the child’s hospital admission, frustrated their care, obscured the true state of their health and resulted in them being subjected to unnecessary and harmful investigations and unnecessary medications.
• KCC v M and O (children, criticism of local authority) [2017] EWFC B12 (26 January 2017): Shelly represented the child’s aunt at the second stage of the final hearing and on the issue of whether the case should be reported in the public interest. The case was widely commented on, and the social worker criticised for comments made relating to the Christening of the child and other matters, which she denied until covert voice recordings were produced during her evidence. The Judge considered the apology of the local authority inadequate and supported internal enquiry. The child was placed with their aunt under a special guardianship order.
• Re K (children) (contact order: posed risk by father) [2013] All ER (D) 214 (Oct): Shelly represented the mother on an appeal by the father. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge, providing for the father to have supervised contact twice a year and be prohibited from making further applications in relation to child arrangements for the remainder of the children's minorities.