Dr Maia Love

Maia has undertaken a range of hearings in public law proceedings, and is rapidly expanding her experience in this area. She is able to assimilate information quickly and confidently determine and prioritise the issues in the case on reading the papers. She accepts instructions in all hearings in care proceedings including ICOs, IRHs, directions hearings, fact finding hearings and final hearings. 

Maia is a determined advocate with a strong sense of justice. In a recent case, she was briefed by parents for the fourth hearing in long running care proceedings. The parents contested an ICO but had never been allowed to voice their stance as the court had failed to book interpreters for previous hearings and interpreters used by the Local Authority spoke the wrong dialect. The court determined that the ICO should remain in place whilst the parents made changes to their conduct, but this was the first time that they had properly understood the concerns of the Local Authority and were able to explain their position properly. As a result of Maia's intervention, the family now has a real chance of reunification and a fair trial.

Her medical background provides Maia with an advantage when it comes to non-accidental injury public law cases. Reading medical notes and expert reports is second nature to her, and she immediately understands the significance of the allegations being made. In a recent trial, Maia was described as "fearless" in her cross-examination of one of the medical experts. When it comes to NAI cases, she is able to go head-to-head with practitioners who are far more senior in call years.

Maia also accepts instructions in Court of Protection cases which complement her care practice, particularly where there are deprivation of liberty applications. 

Maia has undertaken First Appointments, Financial Dispute Resolution hearings and final hearings in finance cases. She has often successfully negotiated settlements at FDR hearings, but does not advise her clients to agree to settlement at any cost and is happy to  progress to a final hearing if the settlement on offer is unsuitable. 

Maia excelled at mathematics during her school career and achieved double mathematics at A-level. This aptitude for numbers alongside her meticulous preparation has helped in financial remedy work; she has often added to the questionnaires and identified possible further lines of questioning. For example, in a recent 3 day final hearing, she dealt with the complex issue of family loans and whether these should be repaid from the sale of the former matrimonial home or whether, as one party alleged, they were fraudulent.

Maia has also recently acted for a client whose former spouse was a litigant in person and was purposefully delaying proceedings. She was not only successful in enforcing previous orders, but managed to get a costs order made against the other side which is unusual in family proceedings. 

Maia has experience of a range of private children hearings including FHDRAs, DRAs, directions hearings, fact-finding hearings and final hearings. Her practice has also involved applications for Family Law Act injunctions; she has acted both for applicants making emergency injunctions and respondents who are served with them, and also participated in return and final hearings.

Maia also has experience of appellate cases and has recently successfully appealed two private children cases where the original decision was set aside and a re-hearing ordered.  In the first case, Magistrates had determined a fact finding hearing would only examine three out of twenty-three allegations of domestic abuse. They also failed to reallocate the case to a District Judge. The oral application was made on the basis that the schedule involved the most serious allegations of domestic abuse. The appeal was successful for two reasons; (1) the Magistrates’ decision was wrong and (2) procedural irregularity, in that the Magistrates did not allow the advocates to make submissions on which allegations should form part of a fact-finding hearing before making their determinations. The appeal Judge set aside the order and scheduled a re-hearing in front of a District Judge to examine twelve out of the twenty-three allegations of domestic abuse. In the second case, Magistrates had excluded witness statements without giving reasons, saying that procedural rules did not apply in a case management hearing, and limited the allegations by one parent when it was clear from the s7 report that all facts were to be determined. Again, a rehearing was ordered.

To instruct Maia, please contact Jay Dorton or Stephen Bush.