The UK Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that denied a 14-year-old British-Ghanaian boy’s request to return to the UK after being deceived and left by his parents in Ghana.

The appellate court ruled that the High Court failed to give sufficient weight to the boy’s views, distress, and the psychological harm he suffered following his forced relocation.

The child, identified only as S, was taken to Ghana by his parents in March 2024 under the pretext of a family visit.

Shortly afterwards, they returned to the UK without him, leaving him in the care of relatives, enrolling him in boarding school, and withholding his passport.

From Ghana, S contacted London solicitors and, through a litigation friend, initiated legal proceedings to be repatriated.

In February 2025, following a three-day hearing, Mr Justice Hayden dismissed S’s application.

Although he described the parents’ actions as deceptive, he concluded they fell within the bounds of lawful parental responsibility.

He also ruled that remaining in Ghana was in S’s best interest, citing safeguarding concerns over the boy’s alleged gang involvement, poor school attendance, and risky behaviour in the UK. Wardship was discharged.

However, in a decision handed down on July 29, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had conflated the lawfulness of the parents’ actions with the court’s independent responsibility to assess the child’s welfare.

The appellate court determined that S’s wishes—particularly his distress and repeated pleas to return home—had not been adequately considered.

The appeal, led by Deirdre Fottrell KC, argued that the lower court’s judgment was flawed in both legal and welfare analysis.

She contended the court failed to fully explore care options in the UK and had allowed the parents’ perspective to dominate, undermining the child’s autonomy.

The appeal was supported by the International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice and the Association of Lawyers for Children, both of which expressed concern over the emotional harm caused to a Gillick competent child misled and left abroad.

Giving the lead judgment, Sir Andrew McFarlane said the High Court had erred by concluding the case before properly examining alternative care plans for S in the UK and by failing to assess the depth of harm inflicted by his forced stay in Ghana.

He wrote: “The fact that S was desperately unhappy in Ghana and fervently wanted to return to England was, in part, what the case was all about.” The court also reaffirmed that while Gillick competence—originally linked to medical consent—does not give a child an absolute say in welfare matters, their views must carry significant weight.

The case will now be reheard by a different Family Division judge, with wardship restored.