FD24P00406 - [2025] EWHC 2836 (Fam)

These proceedings concern S, who is now 14 years old. He is the applicant in wardship proceedings, seeking orders that would result in him returning here from the Republic of Ghana where he currently lives. In March 2024 S was taken by his parents, together with an older sibling, from their home in England to visit relatives in Ghana. After a short time the parents and S’ sibling returned to England, leaving S in Ghana in the care of other family members and enrolled him in a boarding school there. S was unaware of this plan. S’ parents said they took this action due to what they considered was the high level of risk to S if he remained living with them.

In September 2024, with the assistance of solicitors who accepted S’ direct instructions, S issued wardship proceedings in the High Court seeking orders for his parents to return him to this jurisdiction from Ghana.

Following a 3 day hearing before Hayden J he handed down a judgment on 27 February 2025 refusing S’ application and discharging the wardship ([2025] EWHC 439 (Fam)). S appealed Hayden J’s decision. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing on 12 June 2025, the court announced the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for hearing before another judge of the Family Division. The appeal judgment was handed down on 29 July 2025 ([2025] EWCA Civ 1011).

The matter was listed before me on 30 June 2025when I gave directions leading to this hearing. Those directions included directions for a jointly instructed psychologist, Dr Willemsen, and an independent social worker, Mr Jeary.

On the ground S very recently started attending a new boarding school, he has been there about a month. His father has just returned from Ghana where he had spent a month with S.

S’ parents still oppose the application for S to return to live in this jurisdiction due to the risk of harm they consider he would be exposed to.

I heard oral evidence from the jointly instructed experts Dr Willemsen and Mr Jeary and both parents.

I had the pleasure of meeting S together with his solicitor during one of his lunchbreaks at school. We spoke for about half an hour and, fortunately, the link remained stable. A note of our discussion has been circulated to the parties. We agreed I would ask questions first and then he followed. S described his routine at school, and what a typical day involves. He brought his day to day experience at the school to life as to how it is for him. Over the recent half term holiday he had attended a football course/tournament and told me about that. We then discussed sport more generally, in particular the most recent World Cup qualifying matches. Both Ghana and England had qualified and S explained how he was torn which team to support. S was able to explain things clearly and with great thought, he understood we could not discuss the case details but we were able to discuss many other aspects of his life. At the end of the meeting I informed him of the timetable when I would be making the decision.