Max Melsa

Max appears in Public Law care proceedings, acting for Local Authorities in complex matters from initial to final hearings.

Max was instructed by the Local Authority in the appeal case of Re: B (Children) (Remote Hearing: Interim Care Order) [2020] EWCA Civ 584 which set out guidance nationally as to the approach the courts should have to urgent hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

He was more recently instructed to act for the children in Re: D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498 which summarised the law in respect of the interpretation of Hair Strand Testing. The case was also reported as London Borough of Lambeth v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 55 (B).

He also appears regularly for lay parties and has a keen interest in matters involving disclosure between the criminal and family courts. Max was Junior Counsel in the High Court case of Re: I (a Child) which triggered a full review by the Metropolitan Police into disclosure processes in family proceedings involving a significant Police investigation. The case involved complex matters that required multiple applications for Public Interest Immunity.

Notable Family Law cases

• Acting for Local Authorities in cases with the following issues:
  
  • Re: B – regarding issues in re-assessing a special guardian in the second proceedings brought within a short period of time.
  • Re: N-S – proceedings involving a mother who was herself only a child, who had suffered long-term abuse within her own family.
  • Re: B – successfully opposing the discharge of a Care Order, the application being made by the mother who had killed the children’s father but had subsequently been found not guilty of murder.
  • Re: M-R – a matter involving mental health deterioration and self-harm.
  • Re: B – case involving particularly complex needs of a child that resulted in the Local Authority making significant adaptations to the family home.
  • Re: N – regarding the admissibility of expert evidence on non-accidental injury.
  • Re: C – use of the Advocates’ Toolkit and ground rules in proceedings involving a highly vulnerable mother.
  • Re: M – proceedings involving three different fathers involving contentious issues regarding contact.
  • Re: C – proceedings, including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, regarding a child with suicidal tendencies requiring 24-hour supervision.
  • Re: O – regarding relocation of a child involved in county lines drug dealing.
  • Re: R – proceedings relating to children whose mother was charged with murder, with the children being witnesses in the criminal proceedings.
  • Re: R – High Court proceedings dealing with the issue of jurisdiction, successfully arguing that the English and Welsh Courts did not have jurisdiction to make public law orders.
  • Re: M – lengthy proceedings involving a vulnerable mother with multiple personality disorders, resulting in care and placement orders.
  • Re: K – proceedings for a 16-year-old child who had been out of school for a number of years and had limited social interaction.
  • Re: B – multiple applications for Child Assessment Orders, leading to an application for an Emergency Protection Order and subsequent care proceedings.
  • Re: S – application for a Forced Marriage Protection Order.
  • Re P – fact-finding involving serious domestic abuse, including sexual allegations. Allegations proven.
• Acting for Respondents
  
  • For the mother of a child that it was agreed was beyond parental control, arguing for the Local Authority to amend their care plan to a therapeutic residential unit.
  • For a father of a child whose mother was convicted of murdering her new partner.
  • For a father who was facing serious allegations of physical abuse against the subject child.
  • Representing a client suffering from multiple personality disorder.
  • Acting for the children (through their Guardian) in proceedings involving complex arguments regarding the mother’s capacity, with significant findings of domestic abuse found against the father.
  • Acting for the child (through their Guardian) in a second set of proceedings, dealing with issues of what orders the Court could make in respect of an application for a Special Guardian for a Child Arrangement Order.
  • Acting for a mother in a fact-finding hearing regarding allegations of physical abuse by the mother against the children, including the cross-examination of multiple paediatricians.
  • Acting for the child (through their Guardian) in repeated Deprivation of Liberty proceedings.
  • Acting for the children (through their Guardian) in private law proceedings regarding whether the Local Authority should issue care proceedings.
  • Acting for a father in proceedings which required taking into account the cultural background of being Jehovah’s Witnesses.