FD24P00406 - [2025] EWHC 2836 (Fam)

Dr Willemsen completed his report after four interviews with S over a two week period just prior to S starting at his new school in September 2025. He did not have any contact with the parents.

He sets out in his report that S is carrying the psychological burden, that he feels blamed and rejected by his family and notes in his report:

“51.

[S] considers he feels his behaviour is the central focus and, in that way,he feels blamed and abandoned by his family. The feelings of abandonment werereinforced by his move to Ghana.

52.

Harm may be suffered by not feeling integrated in his family and his parentsnot being able to deal with, and understand, his behaviour, and the effects oftheir behaviour on his development.

53.

Harm may be caused by his stay in Ghana because the underlying familydynamics cannot be addressed. Harm can be caused, should he return to theUK, due to a risk of reengagement with people on the periphery of or in gangculture.”

In his analysis Dr Willemsen considers factors at play include the difficulties in the parents’ own relationship which led to the involvement of social services in 2007, 2012, 2016 and 2017 caused by the conflict in the parents’ own relationship and the use of physical chastisement by the mother. S told him he ‘felt a lot was blamed on me because things were tricky at home’. Dr Willemsen considers the wider context needs to be considered.

As regards the impact on S if he remains in Ghana is ‘he will remain abandoned, feel unloved, particularly by his mother, and the fractious relationship with his mother may not be repaired. [S] is then asked to carry the shame of his mother’s difficulties to make [S] feel loved. His parents can stay together at the costs of [S] not having a more continuous relationship with them’. Later in his report he refers to the ‘…risk that the experience of abandonment remains and is reinforced, that he accepts he cannot rely on his parents, and that his anger with his parents particularly his mother remains’.

In his report he considers S’ attachment to his parents. In his view the attachment with his father appears to be ‘characterised by a relationship in which [S] feels he can rely on and feel dependent in. He has been upset with his father for not standing up to his mother, for not protecting him. His father seems supportive to [S] and he was often [S’] first port of call’. In respect of his mother the attachment is ‘…probably more insecure. He raised considerable concerns about his mother’s behaviour which suggests he feels he cannot adequately rely on her’.

Whatever the court’s decision, Dr Willemsen recommends that S receive some form of individual psychotherapy along with courses focussed on criminality, gang culture and adolescence and the family should engage in family therapy. In oral evidence he considered the reflection in S’ most recent statement regarding his behaviour are important first steps. He also considered it important for the parents to recognise the important steps S has taken in managing the situation he is in and what he is saying about his experience of the conflict in the family. He did not consider the plan for visiting for the longer school holidays equated with living together as a family. In his view the family require systemic family therapy to support providing a shared narrative, which is better taking place in circumstances where there is not the prospect of too much change.

The very experienced Independent Social Worker, Mr Jeary, spoke with S on nine occasions via video links totalling over four hours between mid-July and early September 2025. He also visited the family on two occasions and spoke to both parents and S’ two older siblings.

Mr Jeary observed that in their discussions S showed some insight into the conclusions reached by Hayden J and was clear that he did not want to go into the care system. Mr Jeary notes the binary options for the court are either for S to remain in Ghana or return to the parents’ care. He considers the instability S has experienced since being removed to Ghana and remarks on the fact that S still regards himself as an outsider in Ghana despite his parents’ heritage, he identifies as Black British.

In his report Mr Jeary analyses the risks for S if he remains in Ghana are ‘…primary emotional, as noted by Dr Willemsen. The separation has left him distressed, feeling abandoned,isolated, and socially anxious. His emotional state might not improve if he stays,potentially affecting his school performance and overall development. He couldalso develop resentment toward his family. Rebuilding trust, especially with hismother, is essential should he remain in Ghana. Regardless of the court'sdecision, this experience will have a significant emotional impact, and [S]will need support.”

Mr Jeary carefully considers the different positions of the parents and concludes in his report:

“43.

[S] is originally from London and finds adapting to life in Ghanachallenging due to cultural differences. If the court determines that he shouldcontinue living in Ghana, he will eventually adapt. In such a case, it will beimportant for his parents to communicate plans regarding his education afterage 16. They may wish to consider the possibility of [S] returning to Londonto pursue his A-levels. If he remains in Ghana, support as recommended by DrWillensem should be provided to assist him emotionally. Similarly, if he returnsto London and is under his parents' care, a support plan will also be necessary.The funding arrangements for these support packages, whether in Ghana or theUK, remain unclear.

44.

I am of the view that the parents have the capacity to care and protect[S] if he were to return to their home. The parents are clear that althoughthey understand [S’] wishes they do not support this option. If [S] wereto return, I am concerned that there would not be the right level of support forthe family as they would not reach threshold for support from Children Servicesand or CAMHS. I am therefore worried about how realistic this option is.Despite it being what [S] wishes.”

…

“48.

It seems the most realistic option now appears to be Ghana which is notwhat [S] wants”.

In his oral evidence Mr Jeary considered the risks to S to be high if S returned without any of the required work being undertaken, not just with S but also the wider family, including S’ parents. Whilst some of the children Mr Jeary had worked with were more involved in gangs he understood the fear felt by the parents and that it was very real for them. He considered work would need to be undertaken with them to help them understand the risks, which included understanding the judgment to be made about not imposing too rigid restrictions which can have the consequences of increasing the risks they are trying to protect S from. It is work that, in his view, cannot be rushed, although it could start before the end of this term.

In his oral evidence Mr Jeary identified a resource called ‘Be Heard As One’ (BHAO) whom he had recently heard talk about their work which had relevance to the issues raised in this case. They are a community based organisation with a focus on mentoring and outreach, particularly young people exposed to risks such as S is in this case. More information was provided about this and other organisations during the hearing and are in the supplemental email correspondence bundle. BHAO confirmed in a detailed email they have capacity to make an assessment in this case which would involve first a planning meeting to ascertain points of risk and then to put a plan of action in place. They confirmed they undertake sessions remotely and work with families in what they term their wrap around service. They believe for any intervention to work it is important that the young person’s immediate circle is involved. They measure their work through writing up sessional reports which act as a tool to map out their journey and operate a RAG rating method to be able to ascertain risk at the beginning of any journey and see how that risk may move over time. They have a therapist that works with their organisation.