Family
Rebekah is an extremely experienced advocate in all areas of family law. She has particular expertise in any case engaging the rights of children. She regularly practices in complex private law cases involving; contact arrangements, lives with orders, warship and abduction.
She regular appears in all levels of court in public law cases involving the most complex issues including fabricated and induced illnesses and allegations of non accidental injury.
Rebekah is also an experienced Court of Protection practitioner, particularly inc cases involving: of deprivation of liberty, non consensual marriage, medical treatment and best interests decisions for young adults.
An experienced discrimination and human rights lawyer , Rebekah is an able and extremely effective advocate.
Notable Family Cases
London Borough Waltham Forest and GA, 2022 EWFC 208 ( 8 July 2022)
Rebekah Wilson was lead by Mark Twomey KC acting for the mother in this significant and complex case involving allegations that the Respondent Mother had sought to smother her baby. The judgement sets out the importance of resources and time for courts to test primary evidence and concluded,
‘‘The mother and father had to wait for 3 years before F was born to them: he was a much desired, cherished child viewed, as both parents indicated and his name reflects, as a gift from God;……F comes from an exceptionally loving and supportive family.
It is time for him to be returned to them.’
Rebekah acted for a mother who was accused of significant harm to her baby, by way of fractures. The case involved consideration of the suicide note of the grandfather, who had assumed responsibility before taking his own life by way of a note. The judge did not make the findings sought against the mother.
Rebekah Wilson appeared for the appellant in this complex case which has now been before the Court of Appeal for the second time in the course of fact-finding proceedings. Rebekah appealed a number of the Judge’s findings in a case concerning non-accidental injury. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in full and set aside those findings.
Rebekah was instructed as junior counsel for the father in an unprecedented 3rd fact-finding hearing involving the circumstances of a 10 year olds death. The hearing was the first case to continue on a virtual platform during covid.
Rebekah Wilson represented the respondent’s mother in this appeal. The decision under appeal was the discharge of interim care orders during a part-heard fact-finding hearing. Injuries were caused to child T, who was not a child of the Mother, but the Mother was in the pool of perpetrators for causing the injury. The Court was of the view that in the instant case, the Judge was not in a position to assess the risk of returning the children home and did not attempt to do so in the short ex-tempore judgement. While the Judge carefully considered the detailed arguments put by the Mother, the Court of Appeal found that the Judge could not properly carry out a balancing exercise without a court determination on the cause of T’s injuries.
Rebekah was led by Mark Twomey QC in this groundbreaking and successful appeal from HHJ Karp involving the natural family and identity rights of a young child ultimately placed with family in Ghana. This is a significant case about the importance of Article 8 identity rights.
Rebekah acted in an important habitual residence case in the high court involving allegations of rape and domestic abuse.
AB (A Child: human rights) 2021 EWFC
For anyone concerned with the human rights of children AB (A Child: human rights) 2021 EWFC B100 is an essential read. The case concerned a 12-year-old boy, AB, who was placed under interim public law orders in foster care and then care homes run by Horizons Care Ltd. For several months, whilst awaiting a final hearing, AB had had his liberty restricted in a residential unit called Mill Cottage, in breach of his Article 5 rights.
“Between November 2020 and March 2021, AB was confined in the residential unit without lawful authority. The deprivation [of] this child’s liberty was unlawful. That is the crux of the problem in this case. Regrettably, it is not the only one.”