Mckenzie friend Prohibited steps orders
A prohibited steps order is a court order which prevents someone from doing something.
Although a prohibited steps order is often used to stop a parent from taking a child abroad or removing a child from a location ie school, it can also be used for a wide range of different reasons.
What is a Prohibited Steps Order?
Under the Children Act 1989, a Prohibited Steps Order is "an order that no step which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child, and is of a kind specified in the order, shall be taken by any person without the consent of the court".
A Prohibited Steps Order fundamentally imposes a restriction against another parent preventing them from carrying out a particular act such as:
1. Removing a child from the UK;
2. Relocating with the child within the UK;
3. Changing a child's surname;
4. Changing a child's school, and
5. Issues arising in respect of the medical treatment of a child.
It is important to note when considering an application for a Prohibited Steps Order, the child's welfare will be the Courts paramount consideration and it will have regard to the welfare checklist (Children Act 1989, s 1(3). When considering the welfare checklist, the Court must be satisfied that it would be in the child's interest to have a Prohibited Steps Order in place.
Can anyone have a prohibited steps order made against them?
As well as stopping a parent from taking their child abroad, prohibited steps orders are frequently used to stop a parent from doing something with their child, such as attending events or taking part in certain activities.
However, a prohibited steps order can actually be made against anyone. Having parental responsibility is not a prerequisite. What's more, a prohibited steps order may even be used on someone who is not a party to the proceedings.
Depending on the urgency, you can make a self-supporting application with or without notice against the other parent. An order can be made during the course of any ongoing family proceedings where the question arises with respect to the welfare of any child. Or in conjunction with another order in Children Act proceedings.
Leading case law
In Re C (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1412 Ryder LJ said: 'A prohibited steps order is a statutory restriction on a parent's exercise of their parental responsibility for a child. It can have profound consequences. On the facts of this case, without commenting on the wisdom of any step that either parent took or intended to take when they were already in dispute, and in the absence of an order of the court, father had the same parental responsibility as mother in relation to his son. Once the order was made, he lost the ability to exercise part of his responsibility and could not regain it without the consent of the court. That is because a prohibited steps order is not a reflection of any power in one parent to restrict the other (which power does not exist) it is a court order which has to be based on objective evidence. Once made, the terms of section 8 of the Children Act 1989 do not allow the parents to relax the prohibition by agreement. It can only be relaxed by the court. There is accordingly a high responsibility not to impose such a restriction without good cause and the reason must be given. Furthermore, where a prohibition is appropriate, consideration should always be given to the duration of that prohibition. Here the without notice prohibition was without limit of time. That was an error of principle which was not corrected by an early return date because that was susceptible of being moved or vacated unless the prohibition also had a fixed end date. The finite nature of the order must be expressed on the face of the order: R (Casey) v Restormel Borough Council [2007] EWHC 2554 (Admin) at [38] per Munby J'.
vi) Further, the District Judge was being asked to make orders that were invasive of the Article 8 rights of the father and of the children to organise their family lives together without interference by a public authority unless that interference was necessary and proportionate. That issue was not examined.
vii) Oral evidence is not always necessary (see Rule 22.2 of The Family Procedure Rules 2010). However, there must be some satisfactory basis for an order if it is to be made. Otherwise, the justification of the order is absent.
HHJ Wildblood QC also questioned whether the wording of the prohibited steps order ("neither parent is to involve the two youngest children, A and B, actively in any political activity") was sufficiently defined to be enforceable.