FD24P00406 - [2025] EWHC 2836 (Fam)

The foundation of any decision about the options for S have to be secured on a careful holistic analysis of S’ welfare needs, with his welfare being the court’s paramount consideration. Although the parties seek different outcomes there is common ground that the optimum outcome for S is to return to live with his family in London. The rationale for the different outcomes is based on their differences regarding the assessment of risk and the impact of that on an evaluation of S’ welfare needs.

There is no dispute that S’ wishes are to return to live with his family in London. Those wishes have remained consistent since April 2024 when his family returned to London without him. It was because of the strength of those wishes that he instructed his solicitor and these proceedings were issued as a means of securing that outcome.

S was 13 years old when he went to Ghana, he is now nearly 15 years old. The evidence demonstrates increasing maturity by S, whilst, understandably, feeling he had been abandoned in Ghana in circumstances where he has experienced a number of moves, some unplanned. In the more recent evidence, particularly the expert evidence, there are signs of S being more reflective of how and why his current circumstances arose. He has started to show more of an understanding of why his parents took the steps they did, his part in that and the wider complexities in the family dynamics. The current situation is far from straightforward.

There are important signs in the evidence of S’ understanding and recognition of the risks he was exposed to in London. Mr Jeary’s evidence details his discussion with S about the findings made by Hayden J. That is a positive step but it is of note that S falls short of acknowledging the more serious risks that were found, in particular concerning the knives, and the concern that, according to his father, S remains in contact with those who were involved in the risky behaviour here was not disputed or explored.

As regards S’ physical, emotional and educational needs the instability in placements since April 2024 have had an impact on him, increasing his feelings of feeling a burden. Going forward there is now a stable more consistent plan through the combination of being at boarding school with one paternal uncle being able to care for him during each school holiday, with the support of his wife. That is likely to reduce the impact of anxiety and the stress he felt previously. The evidence from Dr Willemsen needs to be carefully considered that if S remains in Ghana he will continue to feel a sense of abandonment, feel punished, continue to experience a lack of sense of belonging and miss living with his family. The emotional consequences for S of those feelings cannot be underestimated. The family plan for regular trips to Ghana during the longer school holidays, together with regular phone and video contact, which will help mitigate the risks of emotional harm but they are regarded by S as a poor substitute. Although there has been a gap in his education in Ghana he has now been in his current school since September 2025. Not detracting from his wish to return here, there are signs that he is beginning to settle and integrate in the school. His statement identifies friendships he has made there, how they have helped him and his father has been able to witness first hand his first few weeks there. The GCSE course is similar to what S would undertake here.

If S returned here in accordance with his wishes, either in January 2026 or summer 2026, it would, on the current evidence, be against the wishes of his parents, who are the only realistic option to care for S if he returned. There would be uncertainty as to whether they would change their mind. Mr Jeary’s assessment is they would not shut the door on S but there has been no sign from the parents of any change in their position, and such a plan would involve, in my judgment, a significant risk of breakdown. As a consequence there remains a real uncertainty, at the most basic level, whether S could return to live at home in a planned way. No-one supports S being placed in foster care, although that could be an outcome if S’ return to live at home did not have the support of his parents. That risks further emotional harm to S by placement with his parents being unsuccessful with consequent feelings of abandonment in circumstances where he could be exposed to even greater risks than he was prior to being taken to Ghana.

There is no evidence of any school place that would be available for S in January 2026, the logistics of how that could be done if the parents continued to oppose his return remain uncertain. This carries the real risk of his education being disrupted at such a critical time. A return in the summer of 2026 could be more easily planned in terms of S’ education but would have the disadvantage of a change of school in the middle of his GCSE course where the GCSE courses may not be readily compatible mid-way through.

The impact on S of any change in circumstances requires careful consideration. If S remains in Ghana that would be against his wishes with the emotional and psychological consequences of that, in particular being away from living with his family and his previous life in London. If he returned to London the support for him and his family through therapy and engagement with the specialist support services, such as BHAO would be more readily available and likely to be of more value with everyone in the same place. However it appears from the evidence, in particular from BHAO, that work with S remaining in Ghana is possible.

S was born and brought up in London. Whilst he has extended family ties in Ghana, he does not regard it as his home. If he returned to live with his family in London he would have the real time support of his family, school and friends and would be able to better equip himself to manage any risks with specialist support that could be accessed in person.

Dr Willemsen’s evidence described the emotional harm S continues to suffer if he remains in Ghana through the circumstances in which he was taken to Ghana, the instability he has experienced there through the number of moves, lack of consistent education and the absence of his family and friends. This has been very real emotional and psychological harm experienced by S and has manifested in the way he describes, including loss of sleep and physical pain. Going forward if he remains living in Ghana that harm will still be present but now needs to be seen in the context of more stable care arrangements, more settled educational arrangements and concrete plans for regular visits by the family including, importantly, his mother. If he returned to live in London the risk of future harm caused by the physical distance from his family and social and educational network would be ameliorated, and he and the family would more readily be able to access the family therapy and support available but it would expose S to the serious risks that Hayden J identified which have not properly been addressed. It would place considerable strain on the family relationships and dynamics which were part of the complex picture that lay behind S’ harmful behaviour in the first place and is opposed as a plan by both parents. Whilst S has matured and begun to reflect he still rejects the more serious risks. His GCSE course would be disrupted by a change of school, which results in further instability.

There is no doubt that both his parents love S and on a practical level would be able to care for S but that is not something they support at this time. The expert evidence demonstrates that there is a more complex picture behind the risks S was exposed to relating to the dynamics of the parents’ relationship which have not been addressed. S has only recently started to have telephone and video contact with his mother after an extended period of no contact. They will see each other for the first time in a few weeks after a period of over 18 months. The parents remain deeply fearful of the risks that S would be exposed to if he returned to live as he wishes, whether in January 2026 or the summer 2026. They are committed to undertake the work that has been recommended, including family therapy and working with organisations such as BHAO which will help give them a deeper understanding of the risks involved. Whilst it would be better if everyone was in the same place for the work to take place that needs to be considered in the light of the wider welfare landscape. I agree with Mr Jeary there are lots of ‘moving parts’ in this situation and weighed in the balance needs to be that the longer S does not live in the family home the more detached from family life he becomes.

This case is unusual in many respects, including where the court is being asked to make orders for a young person to return to live with his parents in circumstances where they remain wholly opposed to that at this time, due to the level of risk they consider he would be placed at. Whilst neither parent has said that course can’t be done, those stark facts underscore the complexity of the welfare picture. As Mr Jeary observed there is work that needs to be done with the parents, in particular the mother, to understand and manage the level of risk they consider S would be exposed to if he returned here. Mr Jeary recognises the fear the parents have is very real for them. Whilst Mr Jeary considers S may have been on the periphery of gangs and criminality that was and is not how the parents’ perceive it.

In considering the holistic welfare balance between the two realistic options I have reached the conclusion that S should remain living in Ghana with the aim of setting out a road map and taking the necessary steps for S to return here after completing his GCSEs. Whether that would take place will need to be reviewed nearer the time. I have reached that conclusion for the following reasons:

I am acutely aware that the conclusion I have reached does not accord with S’ wishes and how that will feel for him. I hope in time he will come to understand the wider reasons why I reached this decision in looking at and weighing up the many facets of this difficult and complex welfare decision. S has the talent, ability and intelligence to make this work together with his family. It will be difficult but they all have the common aim for S to return to live with his family. What is important now is to focus on liaising with the local authority and having a clear family plan that sets out what needs to be done for that common aim to be achieved in the 12 – 18 months that lay ahead.