Prohibited Steps Order

steven.buck wrote:

We have already secured a school place for the eldest child.

With or without the consent of the Dad that you say is a controlling bully?

E

The court will not allow the children to be moved 250 miles without the consent of both parents, a move of 250 miles obviously changes contact and the status quo.

The Children Act 1989 does not impose any explicit restrictions on the right of the primary carer to move within the UK and the courts have taken the view that it will not generally be appropriate to do so. However, there are exceptions such as when the proposed relocation is difficult to access or the court deems the motive for the move is to make contact difficult. See the paragraph "Removal Within the UK" at;

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed878


It might be different when there is in existence an order for shared residence when the child spends a significant time with both parents. In each case the court examines all the circumstances of the case in light of the welfare check list (see s1 Children Act 1989) whether or not it is in the child's interest to relocate with the parent who wishes to move.

Been to court today and they have suspended it for 14days so my partner can sumit a statement. looks like this will be a lengthy process but we are not going to give in and yes the costs are going to kill us but that is the last thing on our minds.

You don't actually say specifically what the ex is asking for in the PSO.

Generally the courts won't prevent a move within the jurisdiction (i.e. England and Wales). If the move were to Scotland he would be more likely to get it.

Because they interfere with parental responsibility, Prohibited Steps Orders can be seen by the court, or presented by the person to whom it will apply, as an attempt by the applicant to control the mother and restrict her rights, and for that reason they can be difficult to obtain – arguments about stability notwithstanding. If they cause a mother to live somewhere she cannot afford, or to lose out on a job, etc, they will not be seen by the court to be in the child's best interest.

The Act also forbids a court to make a PSO in order to obtain a result which could also be achieved through an order for residence or contact. Sooner or later the court will have to make an order for residence or
contact, preferably for shared residence, and it is difficult to see what purpose a PSO can serve that would not be better served by a residence order.

A PSO can be used to apply leverage, for example on a parent who is refusing to agree terms of another order, but they are only ever a temporary solution, and they don't address issues of residence or contact.

My bet is that a PSO is not the best option in this particular case.

Thanks for that forseti, the ex just doesn't want to loose his kids and my partner has said he can still maintain the level of contact that is in place. He just wants to make my partners life hell which he has done for many years.We know he won't win in the end but he is the kind of person who doesn't give up. I have never been through this myself but the courts seem to not take in consideration how my partner is feeling, she is pregnant(9 weeks)just had a miscarridge(was twins)so 1 left as a result of all the stress she is going through. Surely enough we can impose something so this case can be heard quicker in court, otherwise she is liable to loose the other baby.