Our work covers all areas of family law, with particular expertise in the following areas:
Call: 2006
James Dove is a senior family and public law barrister specialising in serious and demanding children cases.
He is regularly instructed where proceedings are finely balanced, highly sensitive or carry significant forensic, welfare or reputational risk, and is frequently brought in at pivotal stages to provide clear strategic direction.
James practises across the full range of public and private children work, with particular strength in cases involving serious harm, grave allegations and parallel police or criminal investigations. He is valued for his ability to bring structure and judgment to complex proceedings and to maintain a clear focus on proportionate and defensible decision making.
He rapidly assimilates large and technically difficult bodies of material, identifies the issues that genuinely require judicial determination and imposes discipline on proceedings that risk becoming unfocused or unmanageable. His written advocacy is clear, concise and outcome focused, and he brings calm authority to cases carrying significant evidential or procedural risk.
James has extensive experience handling contested evidence and is an accomplished cross examiner in cases involving sexual abuse, serious physical harm, fabricated or induced illness and coercive control. He is particularly effective in proceedings conducted under sustained professional and judicial scrutiny, where evidential rigour and composure are essential.
He is regularly instructed in cases involving serious criminality alongside police investigations and criminal prosecutions. He acts for police forces in family proceedings, including High Court cases engaging national security, extremism and terrorism related concerns. He has experience of proceedings involving cross territorial jurisdiction, including cases requiring coordination between courts and agencies across different legal and geographic frameworks.
James is known for his empathetic but direct manner with clients, including those who are distressed, angry or mistrustful of proceedings. He provides clear and realistic advice, maintains appropriate professional boundaries and keeps cases focused on resolution. He acts for parents, children, guardians, local authorities and the Official Solicitor, and is frequently instructed in urgent applications and to provide second opinions in particularly sensitive matters.
To instruct James or for more information…
Call: 020 7353 6961
Email: clerks@harcourtchambers.co.uk
Public law children work is central to James’ practice. He is instructed in care proceedings involving child death, non accidental injury, fabricated or induced illness and serious criminality, often alongside active police investigations or criminal prosecutions. He is
frequently instructed to advise on the evidential basis of allegations, including whether threshold is properly maintainable.
Care proceedings concerning 3 children. Findings made, including domestic abuse by the father. Mother moved with children to Sweden. CAO made for children to live with Mother.
Care proceedings in relation to four children, issued following concerns regarding parental drug use, neglect, parental mental health and domestic abuse.
A judge made a welfare decision that adoption was in a child’s best interests, on the recommendation of the Guardian, when the local authority’s care plan was for rehabilitation to the father. The Guardian conceded the appeal on the basis of the arguments put forward on behalf of the local authority in James’ skeleton argument.
James represented a father in this complex emotional abuse case. Gwyneth Knowles J in her judgment sets out guidance of how local authorities should handle complex private law cases. In this case the mother’s false belief that one of the fathers had physically and sexually harmed his daughter amounted to significant emotional harm.
James represented a local authority in a fact-finding hearing against leading counsel for the father. The mother was concerned that the father may have sexually harmed their daughter in the context of mutual distrust between both parents following the end of their relationship. Findings of emotional harm were made against both parents and findings were made in respect of the father’s conduct that had been denied by him.
Question of whether threshold crossed in respect of an orphan so that a care order could be made. James extensively researched the court’s options for somebody to have parental responsibility for the orphan who was in long term foster care. On the facts of the case it was possible for the court to find threshold and a care order was made, however, James came up with a novel alternative for granting the local authority parental responsibility for an orphan without crossing threshold through the use of Guardianship and the Human Rights Act. The arguments made in the case were transformed into an article in Family Law ‘ORPHANS – Are some of them prejudiced by the Children Act 1989? Can this be remedied?’
Represented a mother in a fact-finding facing an allegation of causing a skull fracture. The local authority’s case was that only the mother could have harmed her child. The judge made a finding that the mother was a potential perpetrator, or the injury was caused by another unknown person. The child was returned to the mother at the conclusion of the proceedings
James undertakes private law children work at the serious end of the spectrum, involving acute welfare, evidential or procedural difficulty. He is particularly valued in complex fact finding hearings where allegations require firm judicial control and where prolonged litigation carries significant welfare risk. He is often instructed where private law disputes intersect with safeguarding concerns, criminal allegations or public law thresholds.
This case was a private law case where the alleged emotional harm was so serious that the local authority’s involvement was required.
Parental alienation case. James’ cross examination of the mother was commented on by Pauffley J in her judgment: ‘If he will allow me to say so, Mr Dove explored the mother’s insight extremely well by asking a series of very useful and pertinent questions.’
James has represented Applicant’s and Respondent’s in Hague Convention proceedings for the return of children. He has also represented children and local authorities within those proceedings. He fully understands the mechanisms available to secure the return to this country within the English courts as well as the limitations of the system. He can advise on strategy to secure the return of a child from another country. He also has experience of utilising European law (Brussels II) to secure the return of children. James can be available at short notice to secure inherent jurisdiction orders to prevent a child being abducted from this jurisdiction, including orders to locate children, have passports seized and port alerts made.
James settled a Hague Convention return case on the basis of undertakings to protect his client, in circumstances where the mother had no grounds to resist the Hague application made by the father.
James secured the return of a child that had been abducted to Spain. James coordinated the English proceedings with the Spanish lawyer who had been privately instructed to secure the child’s returning the Spanish courts.
Court of Protection & Medical Treatment
James has an established Court of Protection practice and is instructed in sensitive welfare disputes concerning capacity, residence and care, deprivation of liberty and serious medical treatment decisions. He acts for individuals, families, local authorities and the Official Solicitor, including in urgent proceedings involving vulnerability and high safeguarding risk.
Acting for a local authority in respect of a dispute between family members over which care home a relative should be placed in.
Administrative court case in respect of which local authority had responsibilities for a person who had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983.
James undertakes appellate and judicial review work arising from family, Court of Protection and public law children proceedings. He is typically instructed to advise on prospects, strategy and risk, and is valued for his clarity and judgment.
James is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public under the Direct Access Scheme in appropriate circumstances.
February has brought several decisions with direct day to day consequences for local authorities, children’s guardians, and advocates in care proceedings and inherent jurisdiction work.
Each judgment carries a clear…
Happy New Year from everyone in Harcourt Chambers’ Public Law Team.
January has, as ever, arrived with a full list, a backlog, and the strong sense that we have all…
An article by James Dove, originally written for the Harcourt Chambers newsletter, has been published by Local Government Lawyer.
The piece considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re E…