A Prohibited Steps Order can prevent a particular step from being taken; however, the court will not usually make one simply because the parents disagree or because one parent strongly disapproves of the other’s choices.
The applicant must explain what is likely to happen, why intervention is necessary, and how the proposed order would protect the child’s welfare. The evidence required will depend upon the nature and urgency of the risk.
What is a Prohibited Steps Order?
A Prohibited Steps Order (PSO) prevents a person from taking a specified action that they could otherwise take when exercising parental responsibility and sets out the action being prohibited. The proposed restriction should be clear enough for everyone to understand what conduct would breach it.
A PSO might prevent a parent from:
- Taking a child outside England and Wales
- Applying for or retaining the child’s passport
- Removing the child from a particular school
- Changing the child’s surname
- Relocating the child to another part of the country
- Arranging a particular medical procedure
- Bringing the child into contact with a named person
- Removing the child from the care of the person with whom they currently live
The precise order will depend upon the dispute in question.
What evidence will the court want to see?
The evidence should answer several basic questions:
- What step is feared
- Who intends to take it
- When it may happen
- Why it would harm the child and why a court order is needed
The court will usually attach greater weight to clear, contemporaneous and independently verifiable evidence than to a parent’s general belief. So a dated message setting out an intention to remove the child is likely to be more persuasive than a statement that the other parent has always seemed capable of disappearing. Travel bookings, passport applications, school correspondence, medical records, police reports, and communications from professionals can all help establish what has happened or what is being planned.
That does not mean an application must fail if there is no written evidence. Family decisions are often discussed verbally, and some people deliberately avoid recording their plans. The applicant can give evidence of a conversation, but should identify when and where it took place, who was present and, as accurately as possible, what was said. Specific detail generally carries more weight than a broad allegation unsupported by examples.
Messages, documents, and photographs
Text messages, emails, and communications through parenting apps can be useful because they may show intention, timing, and the parents’ attempts to resolve the issue. The whole relevant conversation should ideally be saved because producing a single inflammatory sentence while omitting the messages before and after it may give a misleading impression and damage the applicant’s credibility if the complete exchange emerges.
Screenshots should display the sender, date, and context wherever possible, with original copies being retained rather than edited or annotated. If a voice note or video is relevant, its original form should also be preserved; while a written transcript may make the material easier to follow, it should not replace the original recording.
Documents might include airline confirmations, passport correspondence, school admission or withdrawal forms, letters concerning a proposed house move, and evidence of arrangements made overseas. In a medical dispute, letters from the child’s treating doctor may be relevant.
Where concerns involve unsafe living conditions, dated photographs may assist, although they should show something connected to the child’s welfare rather than merely untidiness or a difference in household standards.
Evidence obtained by unlawfully accessing the other parent’s email, impersonating them, or secretly entering their home may create serious problems. A parent should not assume that anxiety about a child gives them unrestricted authority to hack accounts, track devices or obtain confidential records.
Can relatives, teachers, and professionals provide evidence?
A witness who personally heard a threat, observed relevant conduct, or has direct knowledge of the child’s circumstances may provide helpful evidence. This could include a relative who was present during an important conversation, a teacher who observed a marked change in the child, or a healthcare professional involved in treatment.
Family members are not automatically unreliable, but the court may take account of their relationship with the parties and whether they have direct knowledge of the events. A grandparent saying, “I believe my former son-in-law is dangerous” offers little more than an opinion. Their evidence is potentially more useful if they can describe a particular incident they witnessed, the words used, and the effect upon the child.
Professional evidence can carry considerable weight because it may be independent and based upon direct involvement. Nevertheless, a professional’s status does not make every opinion conclusive. The court will consider the information available to that person, the limits of their role and whether they heard both sides.
What if the risk is urgent?
A parent should not delay an urgent application merely because they have not assembled a substantial bundle of evidence. If a child may be taken abroad within hours, removed from school that afternoon or exposed to an immediate risk of harm, the court can be asked to deal with the application urgently.
In exceptional circumstances, an application may be considered without first notifying the other parent. This is known as a without-notice application, and requires the applicant to give a full and accurate account, including information that the other parent might rely upon if present. The court will generally make an order without notice only where the applicant has provided a full, signed account of the evidence and confirmed its truth. If an interim order is made without notice to the other party, the court will normally arrange another hearing at which they can respond.
Urgency should not be manufactured; an applicant who has known about a proposed move for several months but waits until the final day should be prepared to explain the delay.
What happens when the evidence is disputed?
The other parent may deny making the alleged threat, challenge the meaning of a message, or offer an innocent explanation for their actions. They may produce their own documents and witness evidence.
Contradictions do not automatically mean that somebody is lying; memories differ and messages can often be ambiguous. Irrelevant material should be avoided. For example, hundreds of pages of hostile messages about money, new partners, or past grievances may obscure the particular risk the court is being asked to prevent.
A Prohibited Steps Order application is strongest when it identifies a defined risk, supports that risk with reliable evidence and proposes a proportionate restriction. The court is not deciding which parent has behaved perfectly; instead, its task is to determine whether preventing the specified action is necessary to protect the child’s welfare.