<?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; appeal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thecustodyminefield.com/tag/appeal/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>Help: Non Molestation Orders and Without Notice Applications</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/non-mol-without-notice-applications/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/non-mol-without-notice-applications/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2016 18:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ex Parte]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non Molestation Orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Without Notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false allegations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctive orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irregularity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non molestation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-mol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[procedural]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Data from a Freedom of Information Act request for non-molestation order applications (in 2014) shows that of the 21,162 applications (included in the statistical returns) a little over 60% were made &#8216;without notice&#8217; (12,769 applications). Without Notice applications to the court involving claims of domestic violence often result in injunctive orders being made without the&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/non-mol-without-notice-applications/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>Failings in Intractable Contact Cases Continue</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/failings-in-intractable-contact-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/failings-in-intractable-contact-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:01:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CAFCASS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gatekeeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intractable Contact Dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigants-in-Person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parental Alienation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intractable disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parental alienation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When intractable contact dispute cases fail to be resolved there are common reasons, and ones which involve how the cases are managed by the court and professionals involved in proceedings. Some of those cases are salvageable, while for others the long length of proceedings acts as a bar to the court entertaining a different approach.&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/failings-in-intractable-contact-cases/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: 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>Lifebelts and Litigants-in-Person</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/lifebelts-and-litigants-in-person/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/lifebelts-and-litigants-in-person/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2015 00:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigants-in-Person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guides]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigant-in-person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigants-in-person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panorama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skeleton argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[support]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After a busy week of helping litigants-in-person, there was finally the chance to watch the Panorama programme on how litigants-in-person have been affected by legal aid cuts. What points came from that programme? Nothing surprising to those involved in supporting people through the family court. Ken Clarke and the Government out-of-touch, and light on empathy,&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/lifebelts-and-litigants-in-person/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Case Law Additon &#8211; M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/case-law-additon-m-children-2013-ewca-civ-1147/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/case-law-additon-m-children-2013-ewca-civ-1147/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intractable Contact Dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1147]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[draconian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ewca]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[M (Children)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[macur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no contact]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An appeal against an order refusing contact. Findings had been made regarding domestic violence, but the appeal court found the decision to award no contact to be draconian. The judge had failed to consider what other measures could be introduced, including supervised contact, to address any risk to the children or the mother´s anxieties. Read&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/case-law-additon-m-children-2013-ewca-civ-1147/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Successful Appeal Against No Order for Contact</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/successful-appeal-against-no-order-for-contact/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/successful-appeal-against-no-order-for-contact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 21:38:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intractable Contact Dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1664]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2014]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no direct contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R (A Child)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Case Reference: R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1664 A successful appeal against the court having ordered no contact with CAFCASS supporting that decision. The lower court had not considered alternatives which might allow the re-introduction of contact. &#8220;14. The judge made no explicit reference to section 1(3)(g), which requires the court to consider the&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/successful-appeal-against-no-order-for-contact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
