The High Court heard an application for the wardship of a young male wanting to return to the UK and whether the parents’ decision to remove S to Ghana was within their rights of parental decision-making.
Background:
S was born in the UK to Ghanaian parents and is 14 years old. He is the youngest of the couple’s children. The father moved to the UK in May 2000 and was quickly followed by the mother. All family members hold both Ghanaian and British nationality.
By early 2024, the parents became increasingly worried about S’s disengagement with his education and some of the young people that he had become involved with. They decided to bring S back to Ghana and had enrolled him at a College in Ghana, unbeknown to S. Their reasoning for concealing the facts was that they were worried about his reaction.
The evidence diverges, with the end-of-term report stating that S had settled well, while S denied it and argued vehemently, repeatedly trying to leave. He was a boarder at the College in Ghana until July 2024. Thereafter, he stayed at the home of his mother's friend, where he remained until the end of August 2024. He then started living with his maternal aunt and uncle. Subsequently, S went to live with F’s brother at the end of October 2024.
On the 3rd of September 2024, S applied, through his solicitor, 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 since the 30th March, 2024.
On the 4th of September 2024, the High Court made S a ward of the Court and granted other ancillary prohibitions surrounding his day-to-day life in Ghana without notice to his parents.
Decision:
The High Court determined that it was in S’s best interests to remain in Ghana despite his desire to return to the UK. Mr. Justice Hayden first noted that S’s habitual residence remained in the UK but then turned to the question as to whether the move was within the remit of parental responsibilities as detailed in Section 3(1) of The Children Act 1989.
The Court used the NSPCC guidance: 'Criminal exploitation and gangs' to analyse S’s behaviour prior to his removal and found that “a striking number of these signs and behaviours could be identified in the evidence from the period pre-dating S's removal to Ghana”. The Judge was satisfied that S was involved in criminal activity “in, or on the periphery of gang culture”.
The Judge followed the recommendation of the Section 37 Report by ruling that “it is in S's best interests to remain in Ghana”. One of the primary reasons was the father's involvement in identifying alternative schools and his careful consideration “about how best to encourage his son back into education”. The Judge could also see a change in F’s attitude and his opening up to something of importance to his son – the braiding of his hair.
Mr. Justice Hayden ruled that “the decision falls within what I regard as the generous ambit of parental decision-making, in which the State has no dominion”.
Implications:
This decision underscores the reluctance of courts to interfere with parental decisions unless there is clear evidence of harm. In this case, it was also clear that, although the manner the move was carried out was not the most appropriate, the parents’ intentions were good and based on bettering their son’s future.
The Court did not dismiss the parents’ concerns but rather analysed the facts in light of NSPCC guidance on 'Criminal exploitation and gangs'. This demonstrates the need to carefully lay out the arguments and demonstrate them. This case required the Court to balance the child’s wishes against their parents’ fear for their safety.
