<?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>Family Law Brief Update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com</link>
	<description>The latest news on uk family law court cases</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:42:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Re J (children) [2012] EWCA Civ 380 (03 April 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/re-j-children-2012-ewca-civ-380-03-april-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/re-j-children-2012-ewca-civ-380-03-april-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:12:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CA dismissed an appeal by a LA against a decision that the Threshold Criteria were not crossed in circumstances where a Mother had been included in the pool of perpetrators for serious non-accidental injuires to a previous child. The &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/re-j-children-2012-ewca-civ-380-03-april-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/re-j-children-2012-ewca-civ-380-03-april-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawrence v Gallagher [2012] EWCA Civ 394 (29 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/lawrence-v-gallagher-2012-ewca-civ-394-29-march-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/lawrence-v-gallagher-2012-ewca-civ-394-29-march-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In what appears to be the first substantial appeal considering orders made on the dissolution of a Civil Partnership the CA allowed the appeal of the Respondent in those proceedings in part and reduced the overall award from £1,690,000 to &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/lawrence-v-gallagher-2012-ewca-civ-394-29-march-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/lawrence-v-gallagher-2012-ewca-civ-394-29-march-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DL v A Local Authority &amp; Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 253 (28 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/dl-v-a-local-authority-ors-2012-ewca-civ-253-28-march-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/dl-v-a-local-authority-ors-2012-ewca-civ-253-28-march-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a case dealing with elderly parents and their abusive son. The CA upheld the decision of Theis J that the inherant jurisdiction for the protection of adults survived the passing of the MCA 2005. The court therefore had jurisdiction &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/dl-v-a-local-authority-ors-2012-ewca-civ-253-28-march-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/dl-v-a-local-authority-ors-2012-ewca-civ-253-28-march-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A v B &amp; Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 285 (14 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/a-v-b-anor-2012-ewca-civ-285-14-march-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/a-v-b-anor-2012-ewca-civ-285-14-march-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=99</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CA allowed the appeal of a Father against a judgment relating to his future contact with his child who lived with the child&#8217;s two lesbian mothers. The CA did not amend the orders made but provided for the matter &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/a-v-b-anor-2012-ewca-civ-285-14-march-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/04/a-v-b-anor-2012-ewca-civ-285-14-march-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>B v S (Rev 2) [2012] EWHC 265 (Fam) (17 February 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/b-v-s-rev-2-2012-ewhc-265-fam-17-february-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/b-v-s-rev-2-2012-ewhc-265-fam-17-february-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=97</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Wife was awarded 3.34m in ancillary relief proceedings. The court determining that the sharing principle was applicable notwithstanding the couple having married in Catalonia under a separate property regime.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/b-v-s-rev-2-2012-ewhc-265-fam-17-february-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Edgerton v Edgerton &amp; Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 181 (24 February 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/edgerton-v-edgerton-anor-2012-ewca-civ-181-24-february-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/edgerton-v-edgerton-anor-2012-ewca-civ-181-24-february-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=95</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CA considered a very unusual course of events in ancillary relief where the question of the interests of a third party had been settled by consent between the Husband and the Third party in an order made in the &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/edgerton-v-edgerton-anor-2012-ewca-civ-181-24-february-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/edgerton-v-edgerton-anor-2012-ewca-civ-181-24-february-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S (A Child), Re [2012] UKSC 10 (14 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/s-a-child-re-2012-uksc-10-14-march-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/s-a-child-re-2012-uksc-10-14-march-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=93</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court allowed a Mother&#8217;s appeal against an order for the return of a child to Australia in a much anticipated Hague Convention matter. The court held that the Court of Appeal should not have substituted its decision for &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/s-a-child-re-2012-uksc-10-14-march-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/03/s-a-child-re-2012-uksc-10-14-march-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Young v Young [2012] EWHC 138 (Fam) (03 February 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/young-v-young-2012-ewhc-138-fam-03-february-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/young-v-young-2012-ewhc-138-fam-03-february-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=87</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court dismissed a Husband&#8217;s application for the return of his passport which was held by the tipstaff pending the conclusion of ancillary relief proceedings. The court considered the authorities and found the Husband to be in contempt of court &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/young-v-young-2012-ewhc-138-fam-03-february-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/young-v-young-2012-ewhc-138-fam-03-february-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kremen v Agrest (No.11) (Financial Remedy: Non-Disclosure: Post Nuptial Agreeement) [2012] EWHC 45 (fam) (19 January 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/kremen-v-agrest-no-11-financial-remedy-non-disclosure-post-nuptial-agreeement-2012-ewhc-45-fam-19-january-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/kremen-v-agrest-no-11-financial-remedy-non-disclosure-post-nuptial-agreeement-2012-ewhc-45-fam-19-january-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:29:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=85</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court conducted a final hearing in this long running litigation in the absence of the Husband, who did not attend. The court order a lump sum of £12.5m to the wife (£8.3m constituting maintenance). Funds held in court were &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/kremen-v-agrest-no-11-financial-remedy-non-disclosure-post-nuptial-agreeement-2012-ewhc-45-fam-19-january-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/kremen-v-agrest-no-11-financial-remedy-non-disclosure-post-nuptial-agreeement-2012-ewhc-45-fam-19-january-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Galloway v Goldstein [2012] EWHC 60 (Fam) (16 January 20120</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/galloway-v-goldstein-2012-ewhc-60-fam-16-january-20120/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/galloway-v-goldstein-2012-ewhc-60-fam-16-january-20120/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court granted a declaration that a marriage ceremony undertaken in the UK had no legal effect as the parties had previously undergone a valid marriage ceremony in Connecticut, US. The court deplored the practice of participating in two ostensibly &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/galloway-v-goldstein-2012-ewhc-60-fam-16-january-20120/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/galloway-v-goldstein-2012-ewhc-60-fam-16-january-20120/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

