Table Of Content
The appeal was allowed, and the order for child contact was set aside. Dr Proudman represented a mother opposing a care order and placement order in respect of her three children. The local authority alleged domestic abuse between the mother and her former partners causing the children harm. The court also found that one of the fathers physically assaulted a child, which constituted non-accidental injury. The court made a number of serious findings relating to domestic abuse and neglect in the family home. The court made a care order and a placement order in respect of the three children.
Sumption encapsulates the law’s sexism: only quotas can challenge male privilege
A pivotal moment came when I represented a rape survivor in a groundbreaking case that officially acknowledged "gaslighting" as a form of domestic abuse. Collaborating with fellow feminist activists, I played a pivotal role in the criminalization of forced marriage, virginity testing, hymenoplasty, and the raising the minimum age for marriage to 18. Nkumbe Ekaney QC and Dr Proudman represented the mother in an application for a FGMPO on behalf of her daughter. The local authority applied for a travel ban to prohibit a girl from leaving the jurisdiction to visit her father in Egypt due to a risk of FGM. After various expert reports, the court allowed the child to visit the father in Egypt for a short trip.
Charlotte Proudman is anything but a victim, JAN MOIR writes - Daily Mail
Charlotte Proudman is anything but a victim, JAN MOIR writes.
Posted: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 07:00:00 GMT [source]
I’ve seen how lawyers’ sexism corrupts justice. This is how to change the industry
The court gave guidance on both the macro and the micro factors that must be taken into account when deciding whether a travel ban ought to be imposed in a case where FGM is a risk. Karon Monaghan QC and Dr Proudman represented the mother before the Court of Appeal in an FGMPO case. The court upheld the decision of the President namely that the family court has a duty to form its own assessment of risk of FGM unencumbered by the outcome of a materially different process in the immigration jurisdiction.
Triumph for Cambridge in the Boat Race and Lightweight Boat Races
The father sought to rely on sexual footage to show that the parties had consensual sex and the mother was not raped. The mother opposed the admission of such material and argued that it re-traumatised her. For the first time, the Court handed down guidance on the admissibility of intimate material in domestic abuse cases. Following a psychological assessment of the mother, the Court set out thorough participation directions for the mother to ensure she could give her best evidence. The case came before the Court for a preliminary issue hearing after the mother’s appeal of the first fact-finding judgment was allowed. Dr Charlotte Proudman is an award-winning barrister and academic specialising in violence against women and girls.
Charlotte is experienced in judicial review cases that overlap with family law including asylum claims, unaccompanied minors, Article 8 ECHR and domestic violence ILR route. With extensive experience in violence against women and girls internationally, Charlotte specialises in cases involving FGM, honour-based violence, trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and religious conversion. Dr Proudman was instructed in a public law children fact-finding hearing in which they represented private foster carers who had fostered a child for several years. The judge found that the parents abandoned the child and the local authority breached its duties under the private fostering regulations.
Discover UCLA Health
Dr Proudman represented the respondent father who opposed the child’s summary return to Ukraine under Article 13(b) because it is a war zone according to the father’s case. The Judge assessed the grave risk of harm or other intolerable situation by reason of the war or other on the basis of the specific context of the town in far West Ukraine (where the child would be returned to). This is one of few cases in which a summary return order is opposed because the country is a ‘war zone’. Dr Charlotte Proudman was instructed by Rights of Women in a guidance case on behalf of Latin American Women’s Aid, Women’s Aid and Refuge.
Immigration Barrister
Interview with Prince Andrew's ex is cut short as she launches tirade against Virginia Giuffre - Yahoo News
Interview with Prince Andrew's ex is cut short as she launches tirade against Virginia Giuffre.
Posted: Thu, 02 Feb 2023 08:00:00 GMT [source]
For over a decade, Charlotte has fearlessly advocated for legal change to advance the rights of women. Along with women’s rights organisations, she has successfully spearheaded campaigns to change the law for women. Charlotte was instrumental in the criminalisation of forced marriage, virginity testing, hymenoplasty and child marriage. Alongside Girls Not Brides, Charlotte campaigned for the age of marriage to increase from 16 to 18 years old. She is a legal advisor to Our Streets Now and Plan UK, a campaign to criminalise public sexual harassment and Bloody Good Period, which aims to make period products freely available in Britain. Charlotte is an advisor to the Vagina Museum and ila, a start-up working to provide safe spaces for victims of abuse.
Public Law Barrister
She has great attention to detail and is a tough but realistic negotiator. As a leading multi-disciplinary set we are committed to providing you with expert advocacy and quality advice.
The family court must conduct its own risk assessment of FGM even when the immigration tribunal has conducted an earlier risk assessment. Dr Charlotte Proudman represented the Mother in a child abduction case in which the Father had applied for the immediate return of the child from India to the UK. The court found that the child is habitually resident in India having spent around two years there.
The Garrick’s membership also includes about 150 KCs, dozens of serving and retired judges, current and former ministers in the Ministry of Justice, and numerous senior solicitors. Each new edition of my newsletter will be delivered straight to your inbox. Additionally, you can easily stay updated on my latest legal cases and impactful campaigns by following my social media accounts.
Charlotte is a pioneer in furthering legal change in landmark family law cases concerning rape, domestic abuse, and coercive and controlling behaviour. She uses her knowledge and experience of the justice system to advocate for legal change to ensure protection and support for victims and survivors. Dr Charlotte Proudman represented a complainant of domestic abuse at a successful appeal in which she set aside a fact-finding judgment where her allegations of rape, domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour were not proved.
Your engagement is vital as we work together to advance the cause of gender equality and advocate for meaningful change. Dr Proudman was successful in appealing a child arrangements order where provisions for child contact were set out in recitals rather than in the body of a court order. Right to Equality's mission is to change sexist and discriminatory laws that fail women and girls.
At a further hearing to decide on contact arrangements, there were no participation directions, which meant that the mother could see the father who had raped her. The Judge encouraged the mother to agree contact arrangements directly with the father, her proven rapist. The Judge failed to address PD12J, Part 3A and PD3AA and leading case law. My focus centers on holding perpetrators of male violence against women and girls accountable, a specialization that underlines my commitment to justice and equality. Fearlessly confronting gender bias within the legal system, I have been at the forefront of representing victims of rape, coercive control, and female genital mutilation (FGM). I steadfastly refuse to shy away from confronting the truth, even when speaking it challenges established power structures.
Dr Proudman successfully represented the mother at an appeal hearing where the Judge concluded that a psychologist should not be providing an opinion on disputed allegations of parental alienation raised by the father against the children’s mother. Instead, parental alienation is question of fact for the court, not an expert to determine. The case marks a shift away from the trend of experts opining on disputed allegations of parental alienation. Despite the father admitting he threatened to slit the mother’s throat in front of the children, the judge referred to it as a “toxic” relationship – not domestic abuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment