<?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; Leave to Remove</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thecustodyminefield.com/category/leave-to-remove/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>Re C (Older Children: Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1298</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/re-c-older-children-relocation-2015-ewca-civ-1298/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/re-c-older-children-relocation-2015-ewca-civ-1298/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Older Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[(Older Children: Relocation)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civ 1298]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new york]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[older children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Re C]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relocation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case related to an application for leave to remove in respect of two teenagers. One being under 16, the other aged 17. The appellate court refused appeal against the recorder´s decision to refuse leave to remove in respect of the younger teen, despite their expressing their wish to relocate. The underlying reason was that&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/re-c-older-children-relocation-2015-ewca-civ-1298/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How many children were the subject of leave to remove applications in 2014?</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/how-many-children-were-the-subject-of-leave-to-remove-applications-in-2014/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/how-many-children-were-the-subject-of-leave-to-remove-applications-in-2014/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2014]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve just been reading Freedom of Information statistics from Her Majesty&#8217;s Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). Now we&#8217;ll give you a bit of a clue&#8230; according to those same statistics, the number of children involved in cases where an order was made relating to leave to remove was given as 255 (in all of 2014).&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/how-many-children-were-the-subject-of-leave-to-remove-applications-in-2014/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Failures in Judicial Case Allocation and Gatekeeping</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/failures-judicial-case-allocation-and-gatekeeping/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/failures-judicial-case-allocation-and-gatekeeping/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:09:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gatekeeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case allocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gatekeeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have seen a number of cases recently where the courts are failing to follow rules in relation to case allocation. Some of the worst examples include: leave to remove cases (where one parent seeks to remove the children abroad). complex cases previously heard in senior courts ending up heard by magistrates who fail to&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/failures-judicial-case-allocation-and-gatekeeping/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>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>
		<item>
		<title>Leave to Remove Guidance for the non-relocating parent</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/leave-to-remove-guidance/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/leave-to-remove-guidance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ltr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relocation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the weekend I was asked what goes through my head (not the first time in the last week) when working on arguments in leave to remove cases. The question &#8220;are they very difficult to stop&#8221; raises the response &#8220;no, but you can&#8217;t hope to just walk into court without detailed preparation and get a&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/leave-to-remove-guidance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BBC World Service &#8211; Is Virtual Parenting Time a Substitute for Physical Contact</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/bbc-world-service-is-virtual-parenting-time-a-substitute-for-physical-contact/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/bbc-world-service-is-virtual-parenting-time-a-substitute-for-physical-contact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2015 13:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCM in the Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtual Parenting TIme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bbc world service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facetime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Re R (A Child: Relocation) [2015] EWHC 456 (Fam)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skype]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the custody minefield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virtual parenting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you didn&#8217;t catch my interview on the BBC World Service this week on Skype contact, you can hear it on our Youtube Channel (or via the video below). The father interviewed, &#8216;Peter&#8217;, explains the problems extremely well. Was moving the child 400 miles away from this man in the child&#8217;s best interests? Hearing him,&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/bbc-world-service-is-virtual-parenting-time-a-substitute-for-physical-contact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Added to our case law libraries &#8211; W (Children) [2014] EWFC B215</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/added-to-our-case-law-libraries-w-children-ewfc-b215/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/added-to-our-case-law-libraries-w-children-ewfc-b215/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 20:45:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intractable Contact Dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shared Living Arrangements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[b215]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chelmsford family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cochrane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EWFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intractable contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shared living arrangements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shared residence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[w children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[w v g]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case was heard in the Chelmsford Family Court. The Guardian supported an order for shared living arrangements and the mother had interfered with the interim contact arrangements leading to the father making a further application for a reversal of residence. His Honour Judge Cochrane concluded that further litigation was not in the children´s best&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/added-to-our-case-law-libraries-w-children-ewfc-b215/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In today&#8217;s Daily Mail &#8211; The fathers who only see their children on a computer screen</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/in-todays-daily-mail-the-fathers-who-only-see-their-children-on-a-computer-screen/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/in-todays-daily-mail-the-fathers-who-only-see-their-children-on-a-computer-screen/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:50:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCM in the Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtual Parenting TIme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daily mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indirect contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skype]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you missed the Daily Mail article today on the limitations of Skype as a source of contact, you can read it via the link below: The fathers who only see their children on a computer screen It&#8217;s worth remembering that some mums are affected by this too. Regardless of gender, all of their children&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/in-todays-daily-mail-the-fathers-who-only-see-their-children-on-a-computer-screen/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In this week&#8217;s Spectator Magazine &#8211; Skype Dads: A New Sorrow of Divorce in the Internet Age</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/meet-the-skype-dads-a-new-sorrow-of-divorce-in-the-internet-age/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/meet-the-skype-dads-a-new-sorrow-of-divorce-in-the-internet-age/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCM in the Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtual Parenting TIme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brussels II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child abduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hague Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indirect contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skype]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this week&#8217;s Spectator Magazine, an article on the problems facing non-resident parents and their children when the children are removed abroad. More parents discuss their experiences and the difficulties involved. The international element of parental separation is an area of increasing interest for the press. Make sure you also listen to this week&#8217;s Radio&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/meet-the-skype-dads-a-new-sorrow-of-divorce-in-the-internet-age/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
