High Court rejects application by teenage boy to return to UK from boarding school in Ghana

A High Court judge has rejected an application brought by a 14-year-old boy to make himself a ward of the High Court and for an order that he be returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales from the Republic of Ghana, where he has been living as a boarding school pupil and with extended family.

In S v F & Anor [2025] EWHC 439 (Fam) (27 February 2025), The Honourable Mr Justice Hayden found the young man’s parents’ exercise of parental responsibility to be lawful, and recognised that they felt they had “no choice” other than to send him to Ghana, and that the “greater risk of harm” would be for him to remain in the United Kingdom.

He concluded: “The decision falls within what I regard as the generous ambit of parental decision taking, in which the State has no dominion. Accordingly, though the parents require no encomium from me, I hope it is of some comfort to them that, having heard all the evidence, I share their view of where their son's best interests lie.”

The case concerned S, a young male, born in the United Kingdom.

His parents, F and M, were born in Ghana before moving to the United Kingdom, where they now live with their two other children (D and A).

The parents and each of their three children now hold both Ghanaian and British nationality.

By early 2024, the parents had become increasingly worried about S's disengagement with his education and some of the young people that he had become involved with.

Hayden LJ noted: “It is their case, which I have no difficulty accepting, that they were genuinely worried about his safety.

“They [therefore] devised a plan which they both recognise attracts legitimate criticism and involved a deception on their son.”

In late March 2024, both parents, S and A travelled to Ghana together. The purpose of the trip was said to be a visit to the paternal grandmother, who S was told was unwell.

Unbeknown to S, his parents had enrolled him at a College in Ghana, a co-educational international school, which appeared to them to offer an essentially British based curriculum.

Hayden LJ observed: “Neither parent has made any attempt to conceal the fact that they did not tell S about this, stating frankly that they were worried about his reaction. I have no doubt that had he been forewarned, S would not have travelled to Ghana. Predictably and understandably, S was outraged when he realised what had happened.”

F returned to the UK, but both parents were in constant communication with the College.

S was attending the College, as a boarder, until the beginning of the summer holidays in July 2024. Thereafter, he stayed at the home of his mother's friend, where he remained until the end of August 2024.

S then went on to stay at the home of his maternal aunt and uncle for what was planned to be his staged return to the College in September. When that did not happen, S remained living with them. However, he did not believe he was being sufficiently well looked after there.

Following this, F arranged for his son to move to live with his own brother at the end of October 2024. S remains there.

Turning to the legal framework, Hayden LJ began by confirming that S’s habitual residence remains in the United Kingdom.

He added: “Further, nobody has disputed that S is a "Gillick Competent" young person and that, accordingly, resolution of his application requires his own views to be factored into a best interests decision relating to his welfare.”

On parental responsibility, Hayden LJ noted that responsibility for taking decisions rests with the parents and that “the State should recognise that parents, in most cases, will be better placed to take important decisions concerning their child.”

He added: “The classic statement of the principle is expressed in the judgment of Lord Templeman in Re KD [1988] 1 AC 806:

"4. The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities cannot improve on nature."

Turning to the Welfare analysis, Hayden LJ said: “It is important I signal that I am entirely satisfied that the parents wish for S to live and be educated in Ghana is driven by their deep, obvious, and unconditional love for their son. I should also signal that it is equally clear that both parents genuinely fear for their son's life if he were to return to London. They believe and, in my judgement, with reason, that he has, at very least, peripheral involvement with gang culture and has exhibited an unhealthy interest in knives.”

Concluding the case, Hayden LJ said: “What S requires, at present, is the support and love of his family whilst he navigates the challenges of adolescence. Though it is perhaps counterintuitive, I consider that he is best placed to receive and absorb this support whilst living in Ghana. He has regular contact with his father and family, not only by video contact, but by visits too. […] He is away from, what I consider are, the malign influences of the young men he has surrounded himself with. His extended family are able to support him and promote his security, alongside his parents.

“Though I deprecate the parents' deception in getting S to Ghana, I have no doubt that he would not have gone willingly. I recognise that they felt that they had no choice and that the greater risk of harm would be for him to remain in the United Kingdom. The decision falls within what I regard as the generous ambit of parental decision taking, in which the State has no dominion. Accordingly, though the parents require no encomium from me, I hope it is of some comfort to them that, having heard all the evidence, I share their view of where their son's best interests lie. The observations of Lord Templeman remain apposite, some 37 years later.”

Lottie Winson