Possible PSO breech. Any suggestions?

Hi all, hope someone can help. There is a PSO in place that is worded like this:

"Respondent mother is prohibited from moving the home of [child] from an area not more than 2 miles outside of [current suburb]."

Now the wording of that is very vague, and having spoken to the court office staff, no one knows what home means in this context.

Basically the court ruled that my ex could not move house with my son for the time being. She sought a move to a new town 60 miles away.

At the handover yesterday, my ex said something about my son''s toys still being "down here" (it was directed at her bf and not at me) which made me think that she has moved house and will just bring him back for contact.

If that''s the case then it clearly isn''t what was intended by the PSO. It adds extra confusion for my son, who will now regularly be spending time in 3 homes.

I''ve driven past the house in the evening and again today (I know I shouldn''t, but he''s my son). There were no lights on in the evening and the car has gone off the drive. Despite it being a hot day today there are no windows open. I know my ex well, and it really wouldn''t surprise me if she''s viewing the vague wording of the PSO as a loophole that she can exploit, as long as she brings him back for contact.

Anyone have any suggestions?

I would love to be able to go back to court and say that she has moved in spite of the PSO but I suspect she''s more clever than that; she''ll argue that she hasn''t moved his ''home'' (whatever that means), only that he''s spending time at their new house.

More importantly, how unsettling is it going to be for my son, now having 3 different homes? I noticed this weekend that he''s started biting his nails (he''s only 3 years old), and had bitten a couple of them so badly that his fingers were bleeding. This what scares me most about the current situation. I have said in other posts that I don''t trust my ex with my son, and I had been hoping that weekly contact would be the most realistic way of looking after him, but to have developed a really severe nail-biting habit in only 6 days is very worrying for me.

bump?

At a guess it seems clear that the inention of the court was to prevent your ex moving...I therefore think ''home'' means the old house where your son and ex resided. No other explanation seems to make sense.

I think the issues you face are:

How to prove she realy has moved as opposed to, say, having an extended visit away.

Deciding what benefit is there in proving the PSO has been breached. Is a judge likely to order her to move back?

You are almost certainly right about proving anything. I considered asking for the PSO to be varied so that it''s worded something like:

respondent mother is prohibited from removing [child] from an area outside [locality] for a period of 3 consecutive nights without prior written consent (consent not to be unreasonably withheld).

I know that I still couldn''t prove if she had breached it but it would remove the ambiguity of the wording.

There is obviously a benefit to me if she does breach it, but my main concern is the confusion it will cause to my son living in 3 different homes.

We had a full day contested hearing after which the judges expressly stated that she was not to move. Basically if she has moved regardless then she is showing a blatant disregard for the court process.