A 14-year-old boy has lost a court case against his parents after they moved him from London to Ghana to attend a boarding school. The boy, described as shy, articulate, and a keen cook and footballer, had taken legal action after being told he was being sent to visit a sick relative in Africa, only to discover he was being enrolled in a school.
In court, the boy argued that had he known he was being sent to a boarding school, he would have refused to go. However, the High Court in London ruled in favour of his parents, citing their deep concern for their son’s safety and wellbeing. The parents were worried that their son was becoming involved in criminal activity in the UK, particularly linked to gang culture and knives.
The boy’s father explained to the court that their decision to send him to Ghana was to protect him from the dangers he might face on the streets of London, where cases of knife violence and gang-related crime have been on the rise.
The boy had lived in the UK since birth and had never been to Ghana before. He claimed he was “tricked” into going, saying that his parents told him they were visiting a sick relative in Africa. He expressed his distress in a statement to the court, saying he felt like he was “living in hell” and that he wanted to return to England as soon as possible.
In his statement, the boy said, “I really do not think I deserve this and I want to come home, back to England, as soon as possible.” However, the High Court judge, Mr Justice Hayden, was satisfied that the parents’ decision was motivated by love and concern for their son’s safety.
The judge noted that the boy’s parents believed, with reason, that their son was at risk of getting involved in gang culture and violent activities in the UK. The father told the court that they were desperate to prevent their son from becoming “yet another black teenager stabbed to death on the streets of London,” referencing the tragic murder of 14-year-old Kelyan Bokassa, who was killed in a knife attack in January.
The court heard that the boy’s parents had noticed troubling behaviour, which they feared was linked to criminal activity. His mother said sending him to Ghana was not a punishment but rather a protective measure. She explained that she was afraid for her son’s safety in London, where youth violence has been a growing concern.
Rebecca Foulkes, representing the boy’s father, told the court that the boy had met 11 of the warning signs on a checklist created by the children’s charity NSPCC, which could indicate that a child was being groomed for criminal exploitation. These signs included being absent from school, carrying expensive items, and having unexplained money.
The boy’s school also raised concerns about his behaviour, saying it had “suspicions” that he might be involved in criminal activities. The school claimed that they had noticed him wearing expensive clothes and carrying mobile phones, which they believed could indicate a link to gang culture.
Despite these claims, the boy denied being part of any gang or involved in criminal activities. He insisted that he had never been in a gang and did not carry a knife, although he admitted that his behaviour had not been ideal, which he believed might have been the reason his parents sent him to Ghana.
In Ghana, the boy claimed that he struggled to adjust to life at the boarding school. He said he felt isolated, mocked by his peers, and struggled to understand the lessons being taught. He said he would often get into fights and felt like he was being mistreated at the school.
He expressed his frustration in a letter, saying, “I want to have an education again and grow up like a normal person. I feel like my brain is hurt here. I feel like now I am dumber than people I used to be smarter than.”
In an attempt to escape, the boy contacted the British High Commission in Accra and reached out to the charity Children and Family Across Borders, which helped him connect with lawyers at the International Family Law Group. The boy pleaded with the authorities to allow him to return to the UK, writing: “I am from London, England, and I want to go back home.”
While the boy was distressed by his situation, the court sided with his parents, agreeing that their decision to send him to Ghana was based on genuine concerns for his safety. The judge acknowledged the parents’ unconditional love for their son, stating that the move was made out of a desire to protect him from the dangers they believed he faced in London.
The boy’s parents, in a statement after the judgment, said, “This has been a really difficult time for us all. Our priority has always been protecting our son, and our focus now is on moving forward as a family.”
James Netto, from the International Family Law Group, who represented the boy, expressed that the teenager was “incredibly disappointed” by the court’s decision. He said the judgment had been a “real shock” to the boy and that he was considering his next steps carefully.
The case highlights the ongoing debate over parental responsibility and the extent to which parents can intervene in their children’s lives when they believe their safety is at risk. Although the boy’s actions were not those of a typical teenager in conflict with their parents, his parents felt they had no choice but to take drastic action to protect him.
The case also raises questions about how the legal system should handle situations where parents feel their children are at risk but the children themselves do not agree with their parents’ decisions. It is clear that the boy’s parents acted out of love and concern, but their son’s unhappiness has led to a complex legal battle.
James Netto noted that there had been a rise in similar cases where teenagers, often facing difficult circumstances at home or school, have turned to the courts for help. These young people, he said, are often in vulnerable situations and feel that their parents’ actions are not in their best interest.
“There has been a significant increase in cases where teenagers are challenging their parents’ decisions. It is not unusual for teenagers to find themselves in situations where they feel their parents have acted unfairly,” Netto said.
