UK Appeal Court overturns ruling on boy sent to Ghana by his parents without consent
The Court of Appeal in London has overturned a controversial High Court decision that denied a 14-year-old British-Ghanaian boy's request to return to the United Kingdom after being left in Ghana by his parents without his consent.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, 29 July 2025, the appellate court ruled that the High Court judge, Mr Justice Hayden, gave insufficient weight to the teenager’s expressed wishes, the emotional distress he suffered, and the harm caused by his abrupt and enforced relocation to Ghana.
The court has now restored the boy’s wardship and ordered a fresh hearing before a different judge in the Family Division.
The case involved a teenager, referred to as “S”, who was born in the UK to Ghanaian parents and held dual citizenship. In March 2024, his parents flew him to Ghana under the pretext of visiting family, only to return to the UK without him. S was left without his passport and placed in boarding school, cycling through three different households and educational institutions. Describing his experience in Ghana, the boy said he was “living in hell,” struggling with isolation and cultural alienation.
In September 2024, acting through a litigation friend, S contacted solicitors in London and filed a case to compel his repatriation. However, in February 2025, the High Court ruled that although the parents' actions were deceptive, they fell within the bounds of lawful parental responsibility and discharged the wardship.
In his ruling at the time, Mr Justice Hayden stated: “Though I deprecate the parents’ deception, the decision falls within what I regard as the generous ambit of parental decision-taking, in which the state has no dominion.” He cited S’s prior behavioural issues in the UK, including suspected gang involvement and criminal activity, as justification for leaving him in Ghana.
But the Court of Appeal found the High Court's reasoning to be legally flawed. Sir Andrew McFarlane, delivering the lead judgment, said: “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.”
He identified three key failings in the original judgment: an absence of inquiry into viable care options in the UK, insufficient consideration of S’s wishes, and a lack of thorough assessment of the harm he endured.
“The need to balance the undoubted harm arising from life in England […] against the wishes and feelings of this capacitous 14-year-old boy […] was essentially what this case was about,” Sir Andrew added.
The appeal was led by barrister Deirdre Fottrell KC, who argued that the High Court wrongly conflated parental rights with the court’s independent responsibility to assess the child’s welfare. She contended that the court should have explored alternatives, such as placing S with an aunt in the UK, before reaching a final decision.
The case attracted support 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 of which raised concerns about the emotional and psychological impact of forced separation from a child’s home country.
Though the court affirmed that a Gillick competent child (a minor deemed capable of making informed decisions) does not have an automatic right to dictate their living arrangements, it emphasised that such views must carry significant weight, particularly in cases involving deep emotional harm.
The matter now returns to the Family Court for reconsideration.
