<?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/tag/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>Brexit &#8211; Family Law Perspectives</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/brexit-family-law-perspectives/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/brexit-family-law-perspectives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Child Abduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigants-in-Person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brexit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brussels II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child abduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contact enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relocation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=1465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My first thoughts on Brexit news today was sympathy for parents whose children have been removed to other European countries following leave to remove decisions. The decision last night will be causing them uncertainty and anxiety. One of the the best EU regulations from a family law perspective  (or bureaucracy that was forced upon us&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/brexit-family-law-perspectives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>New US Data on Child Abduction and International Non-Compliance</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-us-data-on-child-abduction-and-international-non-compliance/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-us-data-on-child-abduction-and-international-non-compliance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 18:05:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International Child Abduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1980 Hague Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child abduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICAPRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-conpliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[temporary leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Department of State Bureau for Consular Affairs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of interest to those involved in cases involving international child abduction, the unlawful retention of children abroad, applications for leave to remove, and applications for temporary leave to remove, comes new data from the United States on state non-compliance in respect of the children&#8217;s return. The 2015 report from the US Department of State Bureau&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/new-us-data-on-child-abduction-and-international-non-compliance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Friday&#8217;s Quiz &#8211; Do you know your leave to remove?</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/fridays-quiz-do-you-know-your-leave-to-remove/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/fridays-quiz-do-you-know-your-leave-to-remove/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 12:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leave to remove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quiz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[12 questions to test your knowledge on family law, this time on matters related to court applications and arguments where one parent seeks to relocate abroad with the children. Do You Know Your Leave to Remove &#8211; Take the quiz! &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/fridays-quiz-do-you-know-your-leave-to-remove/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>
	</channel>
</rss>
