<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Custody Minefield &#187; Case Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thecustodyminefield.com/category/case-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2018 09:26:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.37</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Courts don&#8217;t deal with perjury or enforce contact?</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/courts-dont-deal-with-perjury-or-enforce-contact/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/courts-dont-deal-with-perjury-or-enforce-contact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reversal of Residence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[b4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[B47]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chelmsford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CM15P00735]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[county court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[w v g]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1398</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[W v G [2015] EW Misc B47 (CC) It is unusual to see judgments published by the County Court so this case may have escaped you (it did me and thank you to the person who tipped me off yesterday). The case concerns an intractable contact dispute made more complex by the subject children having&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/courts-dont-deal-with-perjury-or-enforce-contact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Family Law Week: Excellent Analysis of Internal Relocation Law</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/family-law-week-excellent-analysis-of-internal-relocation-law/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/family-law-week-excellent-analysis-of-internal-relocation-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:08:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internal Relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internal relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Re C]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1283</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Deborah Eaton QC and Stephen Jarmain, barrister, both of 1 King’s Bench Walk, explain the lessons to be learned from the important Court of Appeal judgment on internal relocation in which the authors represented the mother.&#8221; A must read for anyone who becomes involved in cases involving internal relocation. Add it to your bookmarks! Family&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/family-law-week-excellent-analysis-of-internal-relocation-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judicial Judgment &#8216;Wholly Lacking&#8217; in Intractable Contact Cases</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/judicial-judgment-wholly-lacking-in-intractable-contact-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/judicial-judgment-wholly-lacking-in-intractable-contact-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 04:07:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intractable Contact Dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parental Alienation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alienation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EWCA Civ 1315]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[F (Children)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inadequate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intractable contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parental alienation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[F (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 1315 is yet another case involving alienation where the handling of the case by the lower court was &#8216;wholly inadequate&#8216;. Not my opinion (actually it is, and I agree&#8230;), but that of the Lords Justice who heard the appeal. The case highlights the failings which are increasingly commonplace in the&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/judicial-judgment-wholly-lacking-in-intractable-contact-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Important Judgment: Internal Relocation</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/important-judgment-internal-relocation/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/important-judgment-internal-relocation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internal Relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EWCA 1305]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internal relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last month I alerted you to the fact that a new judgment was due from the Court of Appeal which clarifies and updates the application of family law in internal relocation cases. The judgment is now published and we&#8217;ll be adding this to our library in the coming days and updating our guides on internal&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/important-judgment-internal-relocation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Case Law: Leave to Remove &#8211; Gender and Payne &#8211; Essential Reading</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-leave-to-remove-gender-and-payne-essential-reading/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-leave-to-remove-gender-and-payne-essential-reading/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[(International Relocation Cases)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[882]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clarke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DF v N B-F]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distress argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ewca]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[F]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internal relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mcfarlane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ryder]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1007</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In August, Lord Justice Ryder handed down judgment in a case which involved leave to remove. In 2011, the court of appeal reviewed the relevance and application of guidance from the case Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166, also giving clarification as to whether the guidance in Payne was binding precedent. It is not,&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-leave-to-remove-gender-and-payne-essential-reading/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guide Update &#8211; Legal Parents and Parental Responsibility</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/guide-update-legal-parents-and-parental-responsibility/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/guide-update-legal-parents-and-parental-responsibility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:57:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parental Responsibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal parent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lgbt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mothers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-biological parent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parental responsibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parenthood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[step-parents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=997</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve just published a new update to our guide on legal parents and parental responsibility. Within the new guide, we include information relevant to LGBT parents and step-parents, as well as discussing the different legal statuses related to being a parent, how these statuses are acquired, and important considerations. To read the guide, click on&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/guide-update-legal-parents-and-parental-responsibility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Case Law: Successful appeal of refusal of supervised contact</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-successful-appeal-of-refusal-of-supervised-contact/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-successful-appeal-of-refusal-of-supervised-contact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2015 05:47:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Suspension of Contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[direct contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indirect contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long term]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supervised Contact]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Re S (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 689 The father sought an order for direct supervised contact but this was refused. The principle part of the appeal related to the judgment having departed from the CAFCASS recommendation of supervised contact and the lack of reasoning given to explain why. The father&#8217;s appeal was successful and&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-successful-appeal-of-refusal-of-supervised-contact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Important  Judgment &#8211; Re T (A Child) (Suspension of contact) (Section 91(14) CA 1989) [2015] EWCA Civ 719</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/important-judgment-re-t-a-child-suspension-of-contact-section-9114-ca-1989-2015-ewca-civ-719/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/important-judgment-re-t-a-child-suspension-of-contact-section-9114-ca-1989-2015-ewca-civ-719/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigants-in-Person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 91.14 Orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Suspension of Contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s.91.14]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 91.14 orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suspension of residence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An important judgment and essential reading for those who assist litigants-in-person. The case provides learning points on: the making of section 91.14 orders, the issue of suspension of contact, the issue of the treatment of litigants-in-person (and represented parties) in respect of late filing of evidence by professionals and the other party, the issue of&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/important-judgment-re-t-a-child-suspension-of-contact-section-9114-ca-1989-2015-ewca-civ-719/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Freepacks and Downloadable Content</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/freepacks-and-downloadable-content/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/freepacks-and-downloadable-content/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Handling Stress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paternity Testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Specific Learning Difficulties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guides]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self help]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four &#8216;freepacks&#8217; are back up on our site, and with content available to download now: Mediation &#8211; Including our guide, the National Mediation Council&#8217;s leaflet on mediation and form FM1 Dyslexia and Family Court &#8211; Including our guide and checklist of reasonable adjustments Paternity Testing &#8211; Including our guide on paternity testing and court forms&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/freepacks-and-downloadable-content/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Case Law &#8211; Leave to Remove &#8211; N v N (Removal from the jurisdiction) [2015] EWFC B89</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-leave-to-remove-n-v-n-removal-from-the-jurisdiction-2015-ewfc-b89/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-leave-to-remove-n-v-n-removal-from-the-jurisdiction-2015-ewfc-b89/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2015 07:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[devastated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distress argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EWFC B89]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N v N]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obstacles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The mother´s having placed obstacles in the way of contact was a factor in leave to remove being refused. The mother&#8217;s arguments were unduly critical of the father and she could not think of a single positive thing to say about him. Her focus had been on the maternal family whereas it should have been&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-leave-to-remove-n-v-n-removal-from-the-jurisdiction-2015-ewfc-b89/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
