FD24P00406 - [2025] EWHC 2836 (Fam)

S’ parents remain opposed to his return to this jurisdiction although both are committed to keeping the option of him returning after his GCSE’s under active review. Ms Foulkes and Ms Baker on behalf of the father submit Mr Jeary maintained his recommendation within his report that the most realistic option is for S to remain in Ghana. Mr Jeary accepts the parents genuinely want to protect S and concluded that the risks to S of an unplanned and unsupported return are far greater than him remaining in Ghana, as he stated ‘There is simply more risks involved with him coming back now’.

Ms Foulkes submits the assessment undertaken by Dr Willemsen needs to be considered in the context that he only spoke to S in undertaking his assessment, it was done prior to S starting school and did not discuss with S the father’s evidence that he remains in contact with friends based here. She submits the parents are committed to working with the specialist support services identified during this hearing and that work should take place first before consideration is given to S returning to live here. The evidence demonstrates that despite the physical distance the father and S have been able to maintain a close and loving relationship and she submits the father recognises remaining in Ghana is not want S wants but he considers it avoids the harm he would be exposed to here and further disruption to his education.

Ms Foulkes submits that whilst S has demonstrated maturity he still does not accept many of the findings made by Hayden J of the risks he was exposed to, which is demonstrated by S remaining in contact with friends who were associated with the findings made. The father recognises that it is not just S who requires the specialist work but also the parents to help them better manage what they see are the risks to S. The work needs to be undertaken without acute pressure of a deadline. The father repeats his commitment to work towards aiming to a return after S’ GCSEs and Ms Foulkes invites the court to discharge the wardship and, if possible, for the court to make a Family Assistance Order.

Mr Gration KC submits on behalf of the mother that she considers S’ welfare needs are met by remaining in Ghana until he completes his GCSE’s there and does not support S returning to the parents’ care before then. Mr Gration submits the mother is ‘prepared to commit to working towards [S] returning to England once he has completed his GCSE’s, at which point she hopes he will enter into a school or other suitable educational establishment to study for his A levels’. She is willing to engage in the therapy and other support and does not consider they should be rushed. Any earlier return risks S’ education.

Mr Gration’s written submissions emphasise a number of points including the love and devotion that both parents have for S, they are very proud of S, they want S to be safe and that has driven their decisions. The findings made by Hayden J are serious and found her analysis of the risk S could be exposed to if he returned too soon. The mother recognises the steps S has taken and his understanding of that risk is developing over time, his conversations with Mr Jeary and his most recent statement are important steps but he continues to deny the more significant findings about his behaviour. Mr Gration submits Mr Jeary’s assessment was correct, the fears the mother has are very real. The parents need to find a way to differentiate, within the family, between criminal and other risky behaviour and normal teenage behaviour. Until all these issues are addressed Mr Gration submits any return would be ‘fragile and precarious. The risks of further emotional harm to [S] of expecting to return to the family home and not being permitted to, or returning to the family home but then being required to leave because further issues either have or are perceived to have arisen are enormous. The protective factor against that is proper engagement by the family in therapy or some other work to assist them individually and collectively to understand and ameliorate these risks….this process can’t be rushed, or pushed into an artificial timeframe, because of a desire for [S] to return before everyone ([S] included) is ready for that to happen.’ Mr Gration submits in her oral evidence the mother confirmed she would not permit S to return home. Both parents want S to come back when it safe to do so and the mother is looking forward to seeing S in December. Any return before the completion of S’ GCSEs risks disrupting S’ education.

Mr Gration submits the proceedings should come to an end subject to confirmation that therapy/further work can be funded and that there is a structure in place.