Catherine Gee

Catherine specialises in children private law proceedings, representing applicants, respondents, and children via their guardian ad litem. She also undertakes Family Law Act work on non-molestation and occupation orders for both applicants and respondents. She has extensive experience of intractable disputes, and cases involving “parental alienation” issues.

Catherine is particularly skilled in assisting vulnerable clients, whether their vulnerability is due to a health issue, disability or circumstances. She is praised for being supportive, fearless, and fighting for her clients.

FLBA Advocacy and the Vulnerable training completed.

Notable cases:

• A v B representing a mother in a case where the child had rejected its father and the child’s guardian was of the view that this was on account of mother’s behaviour. A transfer of residence was a potential outcome of the case. The child remained in her mother’s care with a “spends time with father” order.
• Re Child A and Child B, representing both children in a case where the mother was disruptive of the children’s relationship with their father to the extent that this was viewed as harming the children. The children were transferred to live with their father, initially with a “spends time with mother” order. Throughout prolonged litigation and a worsening of mother’s behaviour, this led to a “no contact” with mother order.
• X v Y, representing father in a fact-finding where significant physical and sexual domestic abuse was alleged by the mother. The father had no contact with the children in excess of one year and had suicidal ideation. Exploration of the issues led to counter allegations being made. At a fact-finding hearing, one minor finding was made against the father (shouting), whereas all of his allegations (biting, scalding, stabbing with a sharp implement) were found against the mother.
• A v B, representing the wife in an occupation order matter where findings were made against the husband, including holding the wife against a wall by her neck. Whether documents relied upon by the wife were illegally obtained and, if so whether they were admissible. Documents deemed not to be illegally obtained. Subsequent Children Act proceedings showed a deterioration in the mental health of the husband leading to a “no contact” order as there was found to be harm to the children.
• Re: AB, representing an autistic child in a case where adult step-sister accused father of historic sexual abuse. Father had not seen his child in over three years. Testing of the allegations at a fact-finding hearing led to no findings of sexual abuse. The relationship with the child was reinstated and the parents, despite bitter court proceedings, were able to talk face to face and to co-parent.