Susan George

Areas of Practice

Public Law Children

Sue George has extensive experience in representing Local Authorities, parents and Guardians in complex cases concerning sexual abuse, chronic neglect, emotional abuse, mental health issues and non-accidental injuries.

She is frequently instructed on behalf of competent children, extended family members and prospective adopters.  In particular, she is often instructed in cases involving vulnerable adults due to age, learning difficulties or mental health issues and young mothers who are themselves subject to proceedings.

She has a strong belief in the necessity for proper public funding for cases that have far reaching implications for a family, and in particular the children, that can affect them for the whole of their lives.

Private Law Children

Sue George generally represents children in r 9.5 proceedings, particularly in long standing and complicated contact and residence disputes.

Education

LL.B (Hons) UCL

Memberships

FLBA
South Eastern Circuit (Ambassador)
Association of Lawyers for Children
BAAF
Liberty

Reported Cases

Haringey LBC v S [2006] EWHC 2001 Fam [2007] 1 FLR 387

Care – Witchcraft - Immigration – Placement – Adults with whom child currently placed to be removed from jurisdiction – Child had indefinite leave to remain – Child at risk of further accusations of witchcraft if returned to Angola with adults

Held:  The court had no hesitation in condemning ritual practices that caused physical or emotional harm to children. The case had raised understandable public concern and it was important that the public should know what had become of those involved.

F-H (Dispensing with Fact-Finding Hearing [2008] EWCA Civ 1249 [2009] 1 FLR 34 (CA)

Care proceedings – Fact-finding hearing – Abandoned as no longer necessary – Relevant factors – Need for clear findings

Held:   It had been irrelevant that the threshold could be crossed by reference to other matters. The fact that certain material need not be considered before a conclusion was reached that the court had power to make a care order in no way supported the conclusion that such material did not need to be considered before deciding whether the optimum outcome for the children was to make such an order. The responsibility for choosing the optimum future programme for the children lay with the court, and it was a necessary incident to the discharge of its responsibility that it should decide what the relevant facts were so that it could make the wisest choice. In this case there had a been a very live issue as to whether the children should be returned to the mother and the children’s safety from sexual abuse in the event of a return, not just from the adult half-sibling but from any potential abuser, had therefore been a matter of crucial importance.