Expertise
Tash represents parents in child care law matters and is passionate about children law and advising clients on how to progress their case ensuring the children remain the key focus.
Tash has assisted and conducted complex cases involving issues around female genital mutilation, sexual and physical abuse, neglect, non-accidental injuries, drug and alcohol misuse, children with medical health issues and parents who suffer with learning difficulties.
She has always had an interest in children law which has been influenced by personal experiences. Tash’s mother has been a foster carer for over 20 years and became an adoptive parent in 2004. Tash has experience of living with children from various backgrounds with complex needs and has personal experience as well as legal experience in dealing with local authorities, care proceedings and adoption matters.
Tash is returning to Hanne & Co having previously completed her training contract here in 2021.
Before legal career Tash studied Law with Business at the University of Hertfordshire where she was offered a scholarship during her studies and was a member of the Herts Success Programme which was achieved and maintained through hard work and academic achievement.
Tash was elected by her university as part of the Herts Success Programme to debate as a delegate in the Paris international Model United Nations Conference 2016. Tash was the elected delegate for the Economic and Financial Committee representing Jamaica.
After completing university, Tash continued her studies at the University of Law where she completed the Legal Practice Course and achieved a Masters in Law.
Outside of work Tash enjoys BBQs during the summer, cinema during the winter, travelling abroad, spending time with the family, and being an auntie.
Recent / Notable experience
Represented a mother in care proceedings, local authority’s plan was placement in a mother a baby unit, however the local authority sought removal of the child from the mother’s care twice whilst mother was at the residential unit. On both occasions, removal was not granted by the court. Proceedings concluded with the child remaining with mother subject to a 12-month supervision order.
Represented a mother in care proceedings, the child was 16 and had ADHD and autism. Mother needed more support from the local authority to care for the child, the local authority’s initial plan was for the child to be placed in a secure residential unit. By the end of the proceedings, the local authority agreed to offer further support and the child remained home.
Represented a father in care proceedings, the local authority alleged that the parents may have caused a bruise to the baby’s head shortly after the baby was born. Questions were put to various experts, and it was determined that the parents did not cause the bruise, and the bruising likely occurred during birth.
