Safer in Ghana

Court refuses to overrule parents’ decision on where their son should live

A boy of 14 whose parents tricked him into travelling to their home country of Ghana 11 months ago because they did not want him to become “yet another black teenager stabbed to death in the streets of London” has lost an attempt to challenge their decision in the courts.

Royal Courts of Justice, London (foreground). Two pedestrian crossings were installed in close proximity. When police officers used to stop the traffic, judges could rapidly cross the Strand for lunch at the inns of court.

Delivering a ruling yesterday that demonstrates the wide range of work handled by the High Court family division, Mr Justice Hayden said although he deprecated the parents’ deception it fell within what he regarded as the “generous ambit of parental decision-taking in which the state has no dominion”.

In Hayden’s written judgment, the father is referred to as F, the mother as M and their son as S. The couple moved from Ghana to the UK in 2000 and had three children, of whom S is the youngest. All have citizenship of both countries.

“This is a family who is highly invested in educational achievement,” said Hayden. He observed that S’s older sisters had “flourished in the British education system”.

By the beginning of last year, F and M “had become increasingly worried about S’s disengagement with his education and some of the young people that he had become involved with”. The judge was satisfied, on the evidence, that he “was involved in criminal activity and in, or on the periphery of, gang culture”.

In late March 2024, S and his younger sister were taken to Ghana by their parents to visit F’s mother, who was said to have been unwell. M and her daughter left after a fortnight and S stayed on with his father.

Hayden takes up the story:

Unbeknown to S, his parents had enrolled him at a college in Ghana, a co-educational international school which appeared to them to offer an essentially British-based curriculum. Neither parent has made any attempt to conceal the fact that they did not tell S about this, stating frankly that they were worried about his reaction. I have no doubt that had he been forewarned S would not have travelled to Ghana. Predictably and understandably, S was outraged when he realised what had happened.

F returned to the UK but kept in constant touch with the college. But S attempted to return to his family. He later told his solicitor that a security guard had punched him in the stomach when he tried to leave the school. The school said he had been restrained for his own safety after he tried to climb a fence.

S claimed the other children had made fun of him because of his British accent. The college said it had tried to accommodate his behaviour. He stayed with his parents’ family or friends during the school holidays.

S was represented by James Netto, a solicitor from the International Family Law Group who briefed leading counsel. The BBC reported that Netto was instructed after S had contacted the charity Children and Families Across Borders.

Acting as his “litigation friend”, Netto applied last September for S to be made a ward of court. S wanted the High Court, acting in place of his parents, to order his return from Ghana. A wardship order was made and a local authority social worker was directed to investigate S’s circumstances. The social worker’s report concluded that it was in the boy’s best interests to remain in Ghana.

Hayden said:

The concealment from S of the real purpose of the visit to Ghana is a breach of trust, even if justified on the facts. S is entitled to look for and expect truth, honesty and respect from his parents. Their actions jeopardised their son’s happiness and emotional wellbeing.

S has really only known life in London. To be tricked into an alien world and, as he will no doubt have perceived it, to be abandoned there, has been very distressing for him. His communications with his father provide clear and almost palpable evidence of his distress.

Though S has, determinedly, remained in the shadows of this hearing, it is important that he realises that I have been acutely conscious of his unhappiness. He should also know that his parents have not sought, at any point, to avoid or minimise their responsibility for this. Their actions were borne of desperation and fear…

I must look at S’s welfare interests in the round. In his most recent statement, S makes it clear that he does not wish to return to live with his mother at this point. Theirs is a complex relationship, currently under strain. In her closing observations, M told me how committed she is to her family. She said that if S were to come back to the UK, they “might lose him forever”.

She emphasised that the decision to take him to Ghana was not to “punish” but to “protect” him. She said that if he stays there and these negative influences in his life fade away, she will be able to protect him in the future. She believes S is happier in Ghana than he was or concedes, and that she and F are doing their best to help him there. She contrasted the stark options of S being unhappy with losing him altogether…

There can be no doubt that S’s move to Ghana has been a big cultural shock to him, one which was unexpected and for which he was unprepared. Life for him there is very different; he baulks at some of its inconveniences, especially the power outages. However, it is also important to remember that Ghana is an important facet of S’s own cultural identity.

His extended family in Ghana have gone to great lengths to claim him as their own and to help him to settle in whatever way they can. For reasons that strike me as entirely understandable, S may not always have been gracious in acknowledging the help he has received.

S’s experiences in Ghana will generate in him a greater understanding of his own identity and that of his family. As is clear from my analysis of the evidence above, I consider that S is at real risk of suffering greater harm in returning to the UK than if he were to remain in Ghana. I recognise that this is, in many ways, both a sobering and rather depressing conclusion.

What S requires, at present, is the support and love of his family whilst he navigates the challenges of adolescence. Though it is perhaps counterintuitive, I consider that he is best placed to receive and absorb this support whilst living in Ghana. He has regular contact with his father and family, not only by video contact but by visits too.

S has educational opportunities that he can choose to take up and expand. He is away from what I consider are the malign influences of the young men he has surrounded himself with. His extended family are able to support him and promote his security, alongside his parents.

“Although the parents require no encomium from me,” concluded the judge, “I hope it is of some comfort to them that, having heard all the evidence, I share their view of where their son’s best interests lie.”