Rebecca De Stefano
Summary
A landmark decision by the Court of Appeal has overturned a controversial High Court judgment involving a 14-year-old boy, referred to as S, who was removed from London to Ghana by his parents. The case raises crucial questions about parental responsibility, child welfare, and how courts balance the best interests of the child against parental power — particularly in cross-border family disputes.
Background: Boy Secretly Sent to Ghana by Parents
In an act of deception, S’ parents flew him to Ghana under the guise of visiting a sick relative. However, what actually happened was that he was enrolled into a Ghanaian private boarding school, by his parents, without his knowledge.
His parents acted out of concern that he was on the ‘periphery of gang culture’ in London. The court reviewed evidence of S’s behaviour including ‘truancy, fighting and involvement in criminal activities’.
Mr Justice Hayden acknowledged the deception of the parents, but nonetheless ruled that the move was legitimate, stating that a return to the UK posed a greater risk to the child.
Best Interest of the Child – S’ Wishes and Feelings
S described his life in Ghana as ‘living in hell’ feeling isolated, mocked, under challenged academically and wanted to return to his life in London to complete his GCSE’s.
He independently sought legal advice in the UK through a litigation friend, Solicitor, James Alexander Netto, of The International Family Law Group. After receiving the judgment of Mr Justice Hayden, he started the appeal, stating that the High Court hadn’t properly considered his wishes and feelings against his parents’ decisions.
His barrister, Deidre Fottrell KC, argued that he is, ‘culturally displaced and alienated’. Whilst the parent’s barrister, Rebecca Foulkes, said that Ghana was ‘least harmful’ option for him
Court of Appeal Ruling
On 12th June 2025, the Court of Appeal comprising; Sir Andrew McFarlane, Lord Justice Baker, and Lord Justice Arnold -overturned the High Court’s decision, stating:
“The judgment failed to clearly assess the best interests of the child and did not give sufficient weight to the child’s expressed wishes.”
Key outcomes:
- A retrial was ordered before a different High Court judge.
- Wardship of the court was reinstated, giving the court shared parental responsibility alongside the parents.
- Emphasis was placed on the importance of mediation and open dialogue between S and his parents.
What Happens Next?
S remains in Ghana for now, having transitioned to a day school setting. A full reassessment of his welfare, education, and long-term care arrangements will be undertaken in the upcoming retrial.
This case highlights the complex balancing act between parental rights, child autonomy, and international jurisdiction in family law. It also underscores how the UK’s family courts approach best interests assessments in cross-border disputes involving children.
Do you need support with an international family Law concern?
Rebecca De Stefano offers guidance and practical support for Spanish speaking community and law firms/ third party organisations alike where there are no conflicts of interest. You can contact her on familiaresolveconsulting@gmail.com
More from Rebecca De Stefano – Hague Convention – adequate in protecting children from abuse?