<?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; no contact</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thecustodyminefield.com/tag/no-contact/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>Added to our Indirect and Suspension of Contact Case Law Library &#8211; the fourth Minnock judgment</title>
		<link>http://thecustodyminefield.com/added-to-our-indirect-and-suspension-of-contact-case-law-library-the-fourth-minnock-judgment/</link>
		<comments>http://thecustodyminefield.com/added-to-our-indirect-and-suspension-of-contact-case-law-library-the-fourth-minnock-judgment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MichaelRobinson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Child Abduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shared Living Arrangements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child abduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[importance of contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minnock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shared parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suspension of contact]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecustodyminefield.com/?p=775</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While the judge accepts that as a circuit judge, his decision and opinions in this case do not set precedent above that of senior courts, HHJ Wildblood QC sets out his view regarding the importance of both parents being involved in a child&#8217;s life, and that this should only be interfered with in exceptional circumstances&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thecustodyminefield.com/added-to-our-indirect-and-suspension-of-contact-case-law-library-the-fourth-minnock-judgment/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>
