Question on PR & no contact orders

[Mummacake]

If a parent has 'no direct or indirect contact' ordered, can they still exercise PR over the child? Ie: dad says the girl can go on holiday with his parents without mums agreement as he has PR. Seems.to me that his PR is invalidated by the court order? Grateful for any clarification on this.

Hi, I'm sure the real experts will be along in a minute, I am not a lawyer and may be wrong about the below.

But my understanding is that having PR doesn't mean you can unilaterally decide who the child goes on holiday with. Usually both parents with PR have to consent to important matters like the child going abroad, schooling, medical treatment etc., unless these are specified in a court order. So if the order says nothing about holidays, he could in theory veto the child being taken abroad on holiday by the mum but he equally can't insist the child is taken elsewhere by someone else without mum's consent.

If the order says the child 'resides with' mum, is to have no contact with dad and says nothing about contact with anyone else, then my read of that is mum is basically responsible for who the child does and doesn't have contact with. If he wants the child to have contact with his parents (holidays or otherwise) and mum doesn't agree he would need to go back to court and get that specified in the order...

Sorry meant to add that the order specifying no contact doesn't remove his PR, unless it explicitly says it does. Courts usually don't take away PR except in exceptional circumstances, so e.g. a dad in prison might still keep PR. Courts are more likely to make a no contact order than a removal of PR.

So he probably does still have the right of 'veto' over important matters. But not the right to dictate either...

He still has PR but, as Maxelly says, he is wrong to think that means he can decide that his daughter can go on holiday with his parents without mum's agreement.

Sorry for the long absence and many thanks for the clarification. It is as I thought. As it appears his parents are allowing the child to go on holiday with her dad in the face of a clear court order stating no direct or indirect contact, looks like I need a specific order in place to prevent this happening.

I should add that they deny all this but I have the proof so will inform SS & the police incase I can't get a short notice hearing. My concern is removing the child to a north African country - they are incredibly devious. It's so tiring.

You do not have to hand over your child to his parents at all unless there is a court order giving them contact. They have no right to take her on holiday. Your ex has no right to decide that they can take her on holiday. You simply have to say no.

If you have allowed your daughter to go on holiday with your ex's parents you need to act quickly. However, if she hasn't gone yet you don't have to hand her over, whatever your ex thinks. In the absence of a court order giving them contact, you can refuse to allow his parents any contact with your daughter.

Unfortunately, they have brainwashed her to think that they are the only people who care for her, so currently she is staying with them. We know they constantly allow her dad to see her but of course can't prove it. Due to her age, court did a no residence order - v long history of vexatious court action by ex. SS have catastrophicallly failed her so won't do anything. It's a dreadful situation, tho I'm seeing on her that I am far from alone. Grandparents aren't taking her on hols, they're allowing her dad to take her (order breach). No permission has been sought from me at all. If challenged over anything they just deny it. Looks like a stop at border control us the only feasible option when they have such blatant disregard for the law

Who is your daughter living with? Her paternal grandparents? And they’re allowing her to go on holiday with her father when there is a no contact order in place?

Yes. She currently lives with them and let her dad Seeger. Now he's taking her overseas - they deny it but I've seen the evidence for myself. There's a history of ignoring court orders and given that she's 15 there's not much can be done as I understand it.