We understand that one of the most stressful consequences of a relationship breakdown can be in relation to matters concerning your children.

We have vast experience in handling disputes involving issues relating to with whom a child should live, where they may live, where they may be educated, and in respect of under which religion they may be brought up.

In certain situations, you may be in a position where your child has been unlawfully removed from the jurisdiction and urgent assistance will be required.

We are confident in dealing with a variety of scenarios and we can act quickly, where necessary. Given the sensitivity of such matters, we always try to limit collateral damage, thinking through all possible options.

We specialise in resolving such issues with discretion and sensitivity and will steer you through difficult negotiations.

When it is not possible to agree the arrangements for the children, or in an emergency such as abduction, we will act quickly and decisively to protect your children by issuing proceedings to obtain a court order.

Examples of cases in which we have assisted:

A Residence Order

(where the child is to live);

Assisting a father

obtain contact to his daughter where paternity was denied and the mother was hostile


Sears Tooth acted in the leading case S v S (Relocation) [2017] EWHC 2345 (Fam) whereby despite the children being permitted to relocate with their father, costs were ordered against him because of the highly exceptional nature of his conduct.


Sears Tooth acted in the renowned case of RJ v Tigipko [2019] EWHC 105 (Fam) which concerned the unlawful retention and abduction of 2 children by their mother in Ukraine. The Press were joined in the proceedings as the father sought to use such means of publicising the names of the abductors in a bid to encourage the children’s return.

In this landmark case, Mr Justice Mostyn observed that given the scale of the harm to the children, even a remote possibility that by lifting secrecy the children might be returned was worth risking. The mother’s name, Anna Tigipko, and her father’s name, Sergiy Tigipko were allowed to be released which was unique because of the children’s whereabouts being known.

The Judge found that publicity of the mother and the maternal grandfather would create a digital footprint for the children for their later years. The case has been highly reported by The Times, The Telegraph, the Daily Mail amongst others.

Contact us for a confidential consultation.