Reported: 29 July 2025

Background

This case concerns an appeal brought by S, who is 14 years old. S lived in England and was taken to the Republic of Ghana by his parents who said they were visiting relatives. His parents returned to England, leaving S in Ghana in the care of other family members and enrolled him in a boarding school in Ghana. S’ parents took his passport back to the UK. S was deceived by his parents and was effectively stranded in Ghana.

The Appeal

S appealed the decision based on the following grounds:

28. ‘Summarising her primary case (under grounds 1 and 4), Ms Fottrell submitted that the judge had reached a conclusion that the parents’ decision fell  within the ambit of their parental responsibility. Consequently, he did not then properly or fully engage with the various options available for S’ care and finally that he did not properly engage in an analysis of the child’s best interests.’

29. ‘Ms Fottrell then moved on to focus, more specifically, on the judge’s purported welfare analysis. In particular, she was critical of the degree to which the judge had considered the element of ‘harm’ under the ‘welfare checklist’ in CA 1989, s 1(3)(e). It is not S’ case that the judge should have slavishly looked at each element of the checklist, but, in a case which so clearly turned on balancing the potential for harm back in England against harm if S remained against his will in Ghana, it was necessary for the judge to look at both sides of that balance. Whilst the judgment contains a detailed and thorough exposition of the harmful factors at play in S’ life before removal, Ms Fottrell submitted that the judge had ignored or sanitised the negative aspects, as S sees them, of S’ current life in Ghana.’

The Welfare Evaluation

The judge had failed to conduct a balanced welfare analysis as stated in the judgment:

48.  ‘The judge’s welfare analysis fully engaged with the risk of future harm were S to return to England and, in particular, if he were to return to live in or near his home area. My reasons for holding, as I do, that the exercise was nevertheless flawed relate to:

a) the decision to make a final determination at a time when the court did not have any firm or viable plan for S’ care in England, although there were possible options that had yet to be investigated;

b) the degree to which the judge ‘heard’ and took account of S’ wishes and feelings;

c) in contrast to his detailed description of the potential for harm if S were to return to England, the apparent failure of the judge to evaluate and take account of the potential for harm to S as a result of his parents’ actions and, in the future, if he is required to remain in Ghana.’

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal considered that the High Court did not have a clear account from S of his experience of being taken to Ghana and left there. S is a 14-year-old boy who was born in the UK and his new life in Ghana was far from the life he had always known.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge’s analysis of S’ welfare was flawed. The trial judge did not consider how “desperately unhappy S is in Ghana” which resulted in S contacting solicitors in London independently to commence his own wardship proceedings.

This matter has been remitted to the High Court Family Division for a hearing before a different judge.

A copy of the full judgment can be found here: Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana) – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary