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 UK after being left in Ghana by his parents without his consent.
In a judgment delivered on 29 July 2025, the appellate court ruled that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the teenager’s distress, his expressed wishes, and the harm caused by his forced relocation.
The court restored the boy’s wardship status and ordered a fresh hearing before a different judge in the Family Division, marking a significant reversal in the case.
The teenager, referred to as “S,” was born in the UK to Ghanaian parents and held dual citizenship. In March 2024, his parents took him to Ghana under the guise of a family visit but later returned without him, leaving him stranded without his passport. Placed in boarding school and shuffled between households, S described his experience as “living in hell,” citing isolation and cultural alienation.
After contacting UK solicitors through a litigation friend, he sought legal intervention to return home. However, in February 2025, the High Court ruled that while the parents’ actions were deceptive, they fell within their parental rights, discharging his wardship.
The High Court’s decision, made by Mr Justice Hayden, had justified the parents’ actions by citing S’s previous behavioural issues in the UK, including suspected gang involvement. But the Court of Appeal found this reasoning flawed, with Sir Andrew McFarlane stating that the original judgment failed to properly assess S’s welfare, his wishes, and potential care options in the UK. Barrister Deirdre Fottrell KC, who led the appeal, argued that the court had wrongly prioritised parental rights over the child’s best interests, neglecting alternatives such as placing S with a relative in the UK.
The case drew support from children’s rights organisations, which highlighted the psychological toll of forced separation from a child’s home country. While the Court of Appeal affirmed that minors cannot unilaterally decide their living arrangements, it stressed that their views must carry substantial weight, especially in cases involving significant harm.
The matter will now be reconsidered by the Family Court, offering S a renewed chance to argue for his return to the UK.
