Tammi practises exclusively in family law, with expertise in all aspects of Public law. She is extremely experienced in all aspects of care proceedings including applications/discharge of Care Orders, applications for Placement Orders under the Adoption Act, applications involving secure accommodation/deprivation of Liberty under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and more recently matters involving Jurisdictional issues including Article 15 B11R transfer applications. She will represent parties at all Court levels has undertaken cases both in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Tammi has extensive experience representing parents, grandparents, other family members (as intervenors) and children either through their Guardian or by taking instructions directly.
Tammi’s cases range from single issue, alleged non accidental injury right the way through to multi issue matters including multiple physical injuries, substance misuse, neglect and poor mental health of both children and adults and the impact upon ability to parent. She has a particular interest in cases involving psychiatric and medical issues and has undertaken several Factitious Disorder cases (Munchhausen’s Syndrome and Munchhausen’s by proxy) which require the forensic consideration of medical records and she frequently represents Parties with mental health issues through the Official Solicitor.
Her experience of representing parents involves the very sensitive handling of individuals who are often themselves very damaged by virtue of their own parenting. More often, difficult information contained in psychiatric and/or psychological reports needs to be effectively conveyed to encourage engagement in the process or at the very least, understand why difficult decisions are being taken. Tammi’s priority, when representing a parent, is to build trust as quickly and effectively as possible to ensure positive engagement in the process. Many of Tammi’s cases often run in parallel with Police proceedings and she is able to provide advice in this regard.
The Guardian is a professional client and as such, the working relationship demands an ability to have open debate which encourages different viewpoints to be considered within the context of securing the best outcome for the child who is always the focus of the relationship. When taking instructions directly from young adults, Tammi is acutely aware they are part of a care system and will often face challenges on a daily basis. Managing their hopes and expectations in light of a care plan they disagree with can be very rewarding when a positive relationship is formed.
Tammi is friendly and sensitive but is equally happy to engage in tough decision making. She is well-equipped to provide clear, robust advice where required.
AA & 25 Ors (Children)  EWFC 64
An unprecedented complex case mainly focusing on 3 female siblings, AA (15), and twins AB and AC (14). In essence the LA alleged there was a paedophile ring centred on the home of the A girls’ grandparents AGF and AGM who systematically and over a number of years sexually abused AB and AC.
Re BR (Proof of Facts)  EWFC 41 –
This case set a new consideration checklist by Jackson J in respect of the proof of facts; a child’s likely pain response and an analysis of generic risk factors and protective measures in alleged NAI cases
St Helens Council v M and F (Baby with Multiple Fractures – Rehearing)  EWFC 1 Applications to discharge a care order and to reopen settled findings of non-accidental injuries.
This case was heard by Jackson LJ sitting at the RCJ as the court considered firstly whether the original findings should be reopened as a result of new evidence arising from a criminal trial, one of those experts being an American specialising in bone disorders and having ruled they could be reopened a re hearing of the expert evidence.
P (A Child)  EWCA Civ 888
The Children’s Guardian supported the parents’ appeal on the basis that the judge had effectively ruled out the possibility of any placement in Poland at this hearing and the case had subsequently proceeded on this basis. The local authority opposed the appeal and attempted to argue that this had been a misunderstanding and that the judge had not in fact ruled out such a placement at this point.