Managing Contact with Biological and Non-Biologically Related Adults: Challenges and Strategies in Prohibited Steps Order Applications

This blog provides a brief overview of orders that can be made under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989. It will then consider prohibited steps orders in greater detail - what they are, what they can do, what they can't do and who can apply for one. It also 

There are three types of orders available under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989:

1. Child Arrangements Order (CAO): Regulates where a child lives and the time they spend with others, usually a parent or other significant adult.
2. Prohibited Steps Order (PSO): Prevents a person from taking a specific step in exercising parental responsibility without court permission.
3. Specific Issue Order: Determines a particular question in dispute, such as where a child should go to school or whether they should receive a vaccination.

These orders can only be made in respect of a child under the age of 16 (although it can be extended to age 18 in exceptional circumstances). While the court may make orders which last until a child turns 18, there is no such thing as an “interim” Section 8 order—any order made is binding until varied or discharged.

Importantly, Section 10(1) of the Act permits orders to be made in relation to any child involved in family proceedings, even where that child is not biologically related to either party. This opens the door for foster carers or other non-biologically related adults to be involved in Section 8 applications, including for PSOs.

The range of steps which may be covered by a PSO is wide but limited. Although the order can be made against any person, the person can only be prohibited from doing something which could be done by a parent meeting his or her parental responsibility. It is important to note that the order does not prohibit the child himself from taking any specified prohibited steps. For example, if an order prohibits a person from allowing the child to have contact with a named individual, the child cannot be said to have breached the order if the child himself chooses to contact that named individual.

A PSO can be made against a person who isn't a party or even present at court when the order is made. For example, an order could be made against a named person preventing them from having contact with a child and that person need not be a party to the proceedings or even have been put on notice of the possibility of an order being made. However, the order is only enforceable through breach or committal proceedings if it is personally served on them.

A key case is Re H (Prohibited Steps Order) [1995] 1 FLR 638. There, the court held that a PSO preventing a mother from allowing her children to see a former partner (not the children’s father) was wrongly made, as it could have been achieved via a CAO. However, had the PSO been directed at the former partner directly—preventing him from seeking contact—it would have been permissible.

Difficulties often arise when one parent objects to a child having contact with someone connected to the other parent—for example, a new partner, step-parent, or extended family member.

If no CAO is in place and parents are otherwise able to agree contact between themselves, a PSO may be the appropriate route to restrict contact with the named individual. The order may be directed at either the parent (prohibiting them from allowing contact) or the individual themselves (prohibiting them from seeking contact).

However, if a CAO is already in force, or the underlying issue relates more broadly to the time the child spends with each parent, then a PSO will fall foul of Section 9(5). In those cases, the appropriate route may be to include a condition within the CAO under Section 11(7).

Z v V & Anor [2024] EWHC 365 (Fam): The court made PSOs preventing a father from removing the children from the jurisdiction, taking them from the mother’s care, or contacting their schools or medical professionals. These were protective measures made in the children’s welfare interests.

AW v JK [2018] EWHC 2229 (Fam): Despite the mother’s clear breach of a PSO by removing the child to Russia, the court found it was in the child’s welfare interests to remain there, and refused the father's enforcement application.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 – Statutory Reform:

• Section 10A: Requires a PSO where a parent is convicted of murdering the child’s other parent.
•  Section 10B: Requires the local authority to review the PSO in the family court within 14 days.

A PSO can only be enforced via committal proceedings if it has been personally served. The order is binding even on someone who was not a party to the original proceedings, provided proper service has taken place. However, as with all family court orders, the court’s discretion remains rooted in the welfare principle—breach alone is not determinative.

PSOs are a powerful tool for safeguarding children, but they are not a mechanism for settling disputes about parenting styles or minor disagreements. Courts will not tolerate their misuse. Practitioners must always consider:

• Whether a CAO with a no-contact condition is the more appropriate route.
• Whether the proposed PSO complies with Section 9(5).
• Whether there is clear evidence of risk to the child.

Above all, applications must be child-focused, proportionate, and evidence-based. The key message is this: use PSOs sparingly, thoughtfully, and only when necessary for the child’s welfare.