Charlotte has a broad family law where she specialises in cases involving violence against women and girls. Charlotte undertakes judicial review claims that overlap with family law particularly asylum and Article 8 ECHR cases. She is often instructed to appear against Queen’s Counsel and she is instructed in a number of published cases of public interest.
Karon Monaghan QC and Dr Charlotte Proudman represented the mother in an application for a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order before the President of the Family Division. The case concerned a girl age 10 of Sudanese origin with Bahraini citizenship. The mother applied for asylum on behalf of the girl, claiming a risk of FGM for the girl. The mother was appeal rights exhausted in respect of her immigration claims. The family were served with removal directions. Social Services applied for a FGMPO due to concern that the girl would be cut if deported. The court granted an injunction against the Home Secretary, prohibiting the removal of the girl from the jurisdiction. The case was transferred to the President of the Family Division; the President decided that the family court does not have jurisdiction to make an injunction against the Home Secretary. The mother argued that FGM constitutes Article 3 ECHR and therefore the court ought to have power to restrain the Home Secretary from removing a child at risk of FGM from the jurisdiction.
Nkumbe Ekaney QC and Dr Charlotte Proudman represented the mother in a case concerning a FGM Protection Order (“FGMPO”). The local authority applied for a travel ban to prohibit the mother’s child from leaving the jurisdiction to visit her father in Egypt due to the risk of FGM. After various expert reports, the court granted the mother leave to temporarily remove the child from the jurisdiction to Egypt to visit her father in 2019. The case gives guidance on both the macro and the micro factors that must be taken into account when deciding a travel ban in a case where FGM is a risk.
Frank Feehan QC and Dr Charlotte Proudman represented the appellant in an application for permission to appeal the trial judge’s decision concerning a financial remedy and child arrangements order. The court granted leave on one ground namely whether the child arrangements should be set out in the body of an order or by way of recitals. The issue is one of enforcement.
BA & Anor v JA & Ors (female genital mutilation protection orders and immigration appeals) EWHC 1754 (Fam)
Charlotte was instructed by the parents of two girls at risk of FGM in Nigeria to apply for FGM Protection Orders (“FGMPOs”). Holman J gave guidance on when families with insecure immigration status should apply for FGMPOs. Only when immigration appeal rights have been exhausted and the Home Secretary has issued removal directions, can an application for an FGMPO be considered by the family courts. However, this will give rise to (a) complex issues of extraterritoriality; and (b) family courts shall have to review findings of immigration tribunals and/or the Secretary of State about risk of FGM upon return.
London Borough of Barnet v KM, TW, JS, JB  EWHC 1473 (Fam)
Charlotte was led by Frank Feehan QC of 1KBW in a public law children fact-finding hearing in which they represented private foster carers before Newton J. The child had been privately fostered for over four years. The judge found that the parents abandoned the child and the local authority breached its duties under the private fostering regulations. The judgment included guidance on the duties under private fostering arrangements.
AAM v KG  EWHC 283 (Fam)
Charlotte represented the appellant who appealed the trial judge’s order of nullity on the ground of polygamy. The case involved the following issues: validity of marriages overseas, the necessity of documentary evidence proving the existence of a marriage and the relevance of expert evidence. Baker J (as he then was) granted leave to appeal on all ten grounds. At a substantive appeal hearing, the learned judge found that while there was some merit in the appeal, on balance the appeal could not succeed.
Charlotte represented the father in an application for return of the child to Iran following abduction by the mother to England. Two Iranian legal experts gave evidence about the enforceability of the father’s undertakings in Iran.
The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal made an error of law in failing consider Article 8 ECHR outside of the Immigration Rules and thus the case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a re-hearing.
Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (Appellant) v Ryan and another (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)  UKPC 30
Charlotte was lead by Jonathan Crystal and Romie Tager QC of Selborne Chambers in an appeal upheld by the Privy Council to set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the trial judge’s findings concerning the escape of hydrocarbon fumes from an oil well causing medical injuries.
Charlotte represented the applicant father who sought the return of his children to Spain but the children’s whereabouts were unknown, thus the court had no jurisdiction.
“Charlotte is insightful and tenacious, a strong advocate with skills that surpass her call. Her written work is excellent and her judgment is sound. She is a personable barrister that combines real ability with enthusiasm for her work”. Teresa Barnett, solicitor, Dollman & Pritchard Solicitors.
“Charlotte picked up the reigns of a financial relief upon divorce case at very short notice and achieved a brilliant result, leaving the client ecstatically happy”. Nigel Fisher, solicitor, Taylor Rose.
“Charlotte is great to work with, and both reliable and efficient. Clients report that she is calm and able to explain complex matters “in plain English”, which on a day at court with all its pressures is much appreciated. Her advocacy and negotiation skills are very effective. Clients give great feedback about Charlotte. What more could you ask for?” Karen Agnew-Griffith, solicitor, Woolley & Co Solicitors.
“Charlotte is always a pleasure to instruct and is liked by clients. She is brilliant at analysing the case, advising on all of the issues, and managing cases. She has great attention to detail and is a tough but realistic negotiator. Definitely counsel that you would want in your corner”. Tish Reel, solicitor, Owen White & Catlin LLP.
“Charlotte is a strong and skilful advocate who works tirelessly for her clients. I have been impressed with the excellent quality of her work. I recently instructed Charlotte on a child abduction matter. She worked extremely hard and was instrumental in achieving an excellent outcome for our client including costs. I would highly recommend her”. Nathalie El-Korashy, solicitor, Harris Waters Solicitors.
“Charlotte is extremely client focused, professional and enthusiastic. She is a strong advocate on behalf of her client. She is hard working and gives clear, sensible advice to clients. Charlotte communicates well with clients particularly when they are at their most vulnerable and clients report that she is kind, calm and fair in her approach. She is a first choice in any type of children proceedings and is always liked by clients”. Emily Reed, solicitor, Duncan Lewis.
“Charlotte has excellent knowledge in the area of female genital mutilation law. She demonstrates commitment to and passion for this area of work. I have been most impressed by her professionalism and swift response especially with pro bono cases that are often at very short notice. On behalf of the families that Charlotte has supported and is continuing to support, I would like to send her our sincere gratitude”. National FGM Centre.
“I found Charlotte very experienced with acute awareness of my situation and focused with attention to detail. Charlotte is direct, tough but fair in negotiation.” Direct access client in a financial remedy case.
“Charlotte is meticulous in her preparation and case strategy, which vastly improves the chances of securing a desired outcome. She is also very good in establishing a strong rapport with her clients.” Direct access client in a financial remedy case and private law children case.