skip to Main Content
020 7277 5500 info@charlespaulin.com

Charles Njindou

Charles Njindou is a solicitor, and Principal Solicitor at Charles Paulin & Co.

Charles qualified as a solicitor in 2001. He specialises in family law and has particular expertise in children cases involving local authorities, child abduction law and cases with an international dimension or involving the cross-border movement of children.

He has extensive experience of cases involving arrangements for children, custody/residence, contact/access (domestic and international), adoption (domestic and inter country), the reciprocal enforcement of foreign orders, international relocation/ leave to remove applications and jurisdiction disputes.

Charles is a member of the Law Society’s Children’s Panel and regularly represents children through their children’s guardian or separately. Charles also represents parents, carers and other family members in cases that involve local authorities.
Charles is accredited by Resolution as an Advanced Specialist Family lawyer with a particular specialism in Child Abduction and Private Children Law.

From 1996 to 2000, prior to becoming a solicitor, Charles worked in the Ministry of Justice (then Lord Chancellor’s Department) and the Official Solicitor’s Office, as an Executive Officer. Charles also represents clients’ in Court of Protection cases and other civil law cases.

Charles has been involved in a number of important, leading reported cases.

Charles Njindou - solilcitor London Bermondsey and South East square

Reported cases:

Re C (A Child) [2020] EWCA 987

Charles acted for the Appellant mother when the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of a High Court Judge not to recuse herself from continuing to hear a fact find hearing. The appeal was allowed (this means the appeal was successful).


W-C (Children) [2017] EWCA Civ 250
Court of Appeal

Charles acted for the appellant, children’s guardian on behalf of the children, against the making of a Placement Order in respect of the subject child. The appeal was allowed (this means the appeal was successful). The case has been remitted to the lower court for re-hearing on oral evidence.


B and E (children), Re [2015] EWFC B203
Remitted hearing. Circuit Judge.

Charles acted for the respondent adoptive parent, in an application for an adoption order in respect of two children B and E. The children B and E were placed with respondent adoptive parent.


Re M’P-P (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 584
Court of Appeal.

Charles acted for the appellant foster carer. The appeal was allowed (this means, the appeal was successful). This case involved an appeal in care/adoption proceedings from the decision of a circuit judge to place the two young children with their paternal aunt (who had only met them once previously) rather than with the single local authority foster carer with whom the children had both lived from the very early stages of their lives and who wished to become their adoptive parent.


In R v P [2008] EWHC 737 (Fam)
Contact. High Court.

Sumner J was dealing with an application for unsupervised contact to a father that had previously abducted the child in circumstances where the father had since shown restraint in his actions and considerable commitment to visiting his son from abroad; and where it was not in the son’s best interests to revert to only seeing his father in a contact centre. Charles acted for the applicant Father in this case.


Re M & Anor [2007] UKHL 55
Child Abduction

Appeal by mother against decision, under Hague Convention proceedings, requiring return of the children to Zimbabwe following their wrongful removal to England. Charles acted for the intervening children. The appeal was allowed (this means the appeal was successful).

In this case, Baroness Hale stated that whilst “children must not be given an exaggerated impression of the relevance and importance of their views in child abduction cases”, in the small number of cases where settlement is argued, there were powerful arguments to suggest that separate representation should be ordered for the children.


In addition to these reported cases, Charles has achieved good outcomes for children, parents, caregivers and litigants in many unreported cases.

Back To Top Skip to content