Web Analytics Made Easy -
May 22, 2018
What is a Prohibited Steps Order?

What is a Prohibited Steps Order?

A prohibited steps order (a PSO) is an order that prevents a certain type of action from taking place.

In Family cases it is usually applied for by one parent against the other parent, but it can be made against anyone even if that person does not hold parental responsibility for the child and can be made against an individual who is not even a party to the proceedings.

A PSO can deal with a very wide range of issues. Typical examples include to prevent a parent from removing a child from the country or from moving home to another part of the UK. It can be used to prevent the removal of a child from its main home or residence, from the care of the other parent or perhaps, anyone to whom that parent has entrusted a child’s care (for example a Grandparent, or from the child’s school or nursery). It can also be used to prevent a child coming into contact with an individual the Court considers should not have contact with the child or to prevent a change of the child’s surname.

An application for a PSO can be issued either on its own or during the course of other Children Act Proceedings; usually when one parent applies for a Child Arrangements Order (which determines where a child lives and how much time it spends with each of the parents). When an application is issued, notice of the application is usually provided to the other parent by the Applicant unless there are good reasons (usually safety) as to why ‘notice’ should not be given. These will need to be justified by the Applicant at the first hearing.

There are some restrictions on making a PSO. They cannot be made in respect of any child aged 16 or above unless there are exceptional reasons and even then it will not have effect beyond the child’s 18th birthday. Also, a PSO cannot be made in respect of a child in Local Authority care and every PSO order should be time limited.

When a Court considers making a PSO, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and the Court will, at each stage, have regard to the following (a) the welfare checklist as set out in S.1 Children Act 1989, (b) that for an application to be successful it must be better for the child for an order to be made than to make no order and (c) that delay in deciding matters is contrary to the welfare of the child.

If you require assistance with any aspect of a PSO, please follow our simple step-by-step guide to contact our clerks who will put you in touch with the family lawyer best able to help you. 

By Bruce Tregoning | Family and Children

What is a Prohibited Steps Order?

Make an Enquiry

Upon receiving your enquiry a public access clerk will contact you within 24 hours to discuss your case in further detail. Please see our 4 steps outlining the process of instructing a public access barrister with Barrister For Me.

January 18, 2018
Bruce Tregoning successfully represents father

Bruce Tregoning successfully represents father

Bruce Tregoning represented a Father against whom 14 allegations of serious abuse (including sexual abuse) against his two children had been made by the mother; necessitating a 4 day fact finding hearing involving several professional witnesses attending Court including a NYAS Caseworker (Guardian). He successfully persuaded the Circuit Judge to dismiss every single allegation made against the Father in the schedule of allegations produced by the mother resulting in no findings being made against the Father and to order at the end of the case, both overnight contact between the children and their father and substantive holiday contact.

Bruce Tregoning | Family and Children

June 12, 2015

Bruce Tregoning successfully persuades Judge to accept continuation of Court proceedings brought by a father contrary to child’s best interests

Bruce Tregoning acted in a difficult case where he successfully persuaded the Judge to accept that the continuation of proceedings was contrary to the child’s best interests despite a CAFCASS Officer’s report that recommended an assessment by a child and adolescent psychiatrist was required. The Court also found the continuation of proceedings was contrary to the child’s best interests in circumstances where the Father was contesting matters but had failed to attend Court at the final hearing despite being given notice and the Final Hearing being delayed.

Bruce Tregoning | Family and Children