Family Law Hub

Prohibited Steps

Latest updates

  • The father had applied for a child arrangements order that the children live with him, and a prohibited steps order preventing the mother from removing the children from the jurisdiction. It had previously been found as a fact that that the father had raped the mother, had physically assaulted her in front of the children, and had caused direct harm to one of the children. An expert witness concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the father engaging successfully in therapy so that the risks he presented could be ameliorated. The guardian's view was that risks remained to the children, given the father's history of manipulative behaviours, and so even indirect contact was not recommended. The father claimed that this was a case of parental alienation, where the mother had sought to paint a false picture of him to the children and to the court. HHJ Vincent found there was no evidence of this. All of the mother's allegations had been found to be true. HHJ Vincent was not satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the children and their mother could be secured before, during and after contact. They remained at risk of further domestic abuse by the father, even if contact were to be supervised. The father's applications were refused. Judgment, 28/04/2020, free
  • The father appealed against the dismissal of his application for a prohibited steps order, which would have prevented the mother taking their child to Iraq. He argued that the judge had not adequately considered the risk of the child not being returned, nor whether the child would be safe in Iraq. However, Russell J DBE found that the judgment was wholly concerned with the child's welfare, the risk of the mother retaining the child was low, and indeed the greater risk of wrongful retention lay with the father. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 14/10/2019, free
  • The father had difficulties with anger management, volatility and aggression. The circuit judge had made a child arrangements order, including orders for supervised contact, non-molestation and prohibited steps, against which the father had, following a course of therapy, unsuccessfully appealed. He now appealed with regard to the fairness of those hearings. Baker LJ found that there had been no indication to the father, a litigant in person, that the court would be making orders in respect of his future contact or concluding the proceedings. The summary dismissal of his appeal had also been wrong. The two hearings together represented an unwarranted infringement of his rights to a fair hearing. Peter Jackson LJ agreed, and the matter was remitted for a further hearing. Judgment, 28/05/2019, free
  • In brief: A father (“F”) successfully opposed the lifting of a prohibited steps order preventing the mother (“M”) from leaving the jurisdiction with the child. M had already been refused permission to leave permanently and relocate to Japan (her country of origin) with the child but a PSO preventing her from going on holiday to Japan had been lifted. F successfully argued that the trial judge had failed to analyse the difficulties which may arise when seeking to enforce orders in Japan and a PSO for two years was substituted. Judgment, 02/08/2018, free
  • A declaration was made that the mother had wrongfully removed the child to Hungary the day after a prohibited steps order had been made, but which had not been served on the mother because she was not at home when the process server tried to serve the order. Judgment, 26/05/2017, free

Latest know-how

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item