John Hobley

John has experience of both private and public family work, including Children Act and Family Law Act proceedings on behalf of applicants and respondents in the County Court and High Court. John frequently represents clients at both finding of fact and contested final hearings. These cases have frequently involved complex allegations of domestic violence and abuse of children. John also has experience of cases involving matrimonial finance.

John’s work often includes assisting clients with learning difficulties and past and current mental health struggles and he is well equipped to assist all clients in the preparation of their cases, and presenting their best case.

Notable Cases

• Re N
  

  Represented a father who had ASD and ADHD diagnoses in public law proceedings. Over two final hearings, lasting 17 days, the court found that the Local Authority had failed to properly account for client’s additional needs in the assessment and further work was required. This case involved cross-examination of a number of social workers and a consultant clinical psychologist.

• Re D
  

  Represented a mother in public law proceedings at a 7 day final hearing following a finding of fact hearing at which it had been found that father had sexually abused a number of other family members. Involved cross-examination of a consultant psychologist.

• Re R
  

  Represented a mother in the pool of possible perpetrators for serious non-accidental injuries to an infant child, there were further allegations that she had failed to protect the child from harm. The five-day composite final hearing involved analysis of over 1,000 pages of social media and text message evidence. No findings were made against the mother and the child was returned to her care following a short rehabilitation plan.

• Re A
  

  Represented children’s guardian in private law proceedings concerning a contact application by a litigant in person father. The case involved allegations of cross-border abduction and allegations that parents had agreed to mislead the court.

• Re H
  

  Represented a respondent mother in contact proceedings. The case involved allegations made by the client of rape and sexual abuse in both the UK and abroad. The court found that client’s allegations were proven.

• Re A
  

  Represented respondent in matrimonial finance proceedings who had become unable to work in his chosen career and therefore been unable to make periodical payments previously ordered by the court. Successfully argued for the discharge of the periodical payments order.