UK Court of Appeal Overturns Ruling in Case of Teen Sent to Ghana Without Consent

 

The UK Court of Appeal has overturned a controversial High Court decision involving a 14-year-old British-Ghanaian boy who was taken to Ghana by his parents without his consent and subsequently left there. The appellate ruling, delivered on July 29, 2025, reinstated the child’s legal wardship and ordered a new hearing before a different judge in the Family Division.

The boy, referred to as “S”, was born in the United Kingdom to Ghanaian parents and holds dual citizenship. In March 2024, his parents flew him to Ghana under the guise of a family visit. However, they returned to the UK without him, leaving him without a passport and placing him in a boarding school. Over the following months, S was moved between multiple households and educational institutions. He described his time in Ghana as “living in hell,” citing isolation and severe cultural dislocation.

In September 2024, acting through a litigation friend, S engaged solicitors in London to seek his return. Despite evidence of his distress, the High Court, in February 2025, ruled that the parents’ actions—though deceptive—fell within lawful parental responsibility. Mr Justice Hayden concluded that the state could not interfere in such decisions, referencing S’s past behavioral issues, including suspected gang involvement, as partial justification for the parents’ actions.

However, the Court of Appeal found critical flaws in that judgment. Sir Andrew McFarlane, who delivered the lead opinion, stated that the lower court failed to adequately consider the boy’s wishes, the emotional harm caused by the relocation, and alternative care options in the UK.

“The fact that S was desperately unhappy in Ghana and fervently wanted to return to England was, in part, what the case was all about,” Sir Andrew remarked. He identified three key deficiencies in the High Court’s decision:

1. A failure to explore viable care arrangements in the UK;
2. Insufficient weight given to S’s clearly expressed views;
3. Lack of a comprehensive assessment of the psychological harm he experienced.

Barrister Deirdre Fottrell KC, who led the appeal, argued that the High Court had wrongly equated parental discretion with judicial responsibility, failing to give due consideration to the boy’s welfare. She proposed that alternatives—such as placing S with his aunt in the UK—should have been considered before making a final ruling.

The case drew attention from children’s rights organisations, including the International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice (ICFLPP) and the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC). Both expressed concern over the psychological impact of the boy’s abrupt separation from his home and community in the UK.

Although the Court of Appeal reiterated that a Gillick-competent child (a minor capable of making informed decisions) does not hold an automatic right to choose where they live, it emphasised that such a child’s views must carry significant weight—especially in situations involving emotional trauma.

The case now returns to the Family Court for a full reassessment.

Source: Graphic.com.gh