<?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; 2015</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thecustodyminefield.com/tag/2015/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>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>Lying in court and penalties for late filing of evidence</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/lying-in-court-and-penalties-for-late-filing-of-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/lying-in-court-and-penalties-for-late-filing-of-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intractable Contact Dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[535]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EWFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HU and SU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keehan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[late filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wasted cost]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This morning, I was reading the case HU v SU [2015] EWFC 535 published earlier this month. The case has a number of features which are depressingly common: Allegations being omitted from earlier statements and the schedule of findings sought, and later fresh allegations embellished and exaggerated in oral evidence; Children being involved in parental&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/lying-in-court-and-penalties-for-late-filing-of-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New case law &#8211; You Can&#8217;t Hug Skype</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-you-cant-hug-skype/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-you-cant-hug-skype/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2015 21:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leave to Remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtual Parenting TIme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2015]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[c v b]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ewhc 456]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Wood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skype]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=184</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Case Reference: Re R (A Child: Relocation) [2015] EWHC 456 (Fam) Reposted as we&#8217;d originally given a reference of C and B (A Child: Relocation) [2015] EWHC 456 (Fam) and it&#8217;s commonly being referred to now as Re R. The neutral citation remains unchanged. Worth reminding yourself of the case, as it still isn&#8217;t commonly&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-case-law-you-cant-hug-skype/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
