London court backs parents, despite acknowledging the boy’s views “should be afforded significant weight”
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
*******************************
Social workers reported that the boy was frequently late to class, sometimes stayed out late, and had been observed wearing expensive clothes and possessing multiple phones. His school also expressed “suspicions about him engaging in criminal activities” – the court heard.
*******************************
A London court has ruled in favour of parents who bundled their son back to boarding school in Ghana on suspicion of his involvement in criminal gang activities – despite having being born in London and is thus a citizen of the United Kingdom.
The 14-year-old boy, who is not named for legal reasons, lost the court case he brought against his own parents after they took him on a visit to Ghana, enrolled him in boarding school, and flew back to the UK without him.
The BBC reports that the boy, described in court as shy, articulate, a keen cook and footballer, said his parents had tricked him into going to Ghana by telling him it was to visit a sick relative.
He said had he known he was being sent to boarding school “there would have been no way I would have agreed to it”.
But the High Court in London also heard his parents were worried he was being “groomed” into criminal activity.
In a written statement to the court, the boy said: “I feel like I am living in hell. I really do not think I deserve this and I want to come home, back to England, as soon as possible.”
In his judgment, High Court judge Hayden said he recognised that “this is, in many ways, both a sobering and rather depressing conclusion.”
However, he ruled he was satisfied that the parents’ wish for their son to move to Ghana was “driven by their deep, obvious and unconditional love”.
The boy was at risk of suffering greater harm returning to the UK, he said.
In Hayden’s view, the boy’s parents believe “and in my judgement with reason” that their son has “at very least peripheral involvement with gang culture and has exhibited an unhealthy interest in knives”.
The boy’s father told the judge the couple did not want their son to be “yet another black teenager stabbed to death in the streets of London.”
The boy, who had lived in the UK since birth, said he was “mocked” and “never settled in” at the school in Ghana and “could also barely understand what was going on and I would get into fights”.
He wrote that he was “so scared and desperate” that he emailed the British High Commission in Accra as well as contacting the charity Children and Family Across Borders, who it is believed put him in touch with lawyers at the International Family Law Group.
“I am from London, England, and I want to go back home,” he wrote.
He said he had been “mistreated” at the school in Ghana and “I’m begging to go back to my old school” in England.
However, the High Court heard that the boy’s parents had sent him because they feared for his safety in London.
In a statement, his mother said sending him to Ghana was “not a punishment but a measure to protect him”.
She referred to the murder of Kelyan Bokassa, the 14-year-old boy who was stabbed to death on a bus in Woolwich in January. That was “every parent’s worst nightmare”, she said.
She added that she did not believe her son would survive in the UK and did not want to be part of her son’s “destruction”.
Rebecca Foulkes, representing the boy’s father, said the boy met 11 of the points on a checklist produced by the children’s charity NSPCC to indicate whether a child might have joined a gang or was being criminally exploited.
That included being absent from school, having unexplained money, buying new things, and carrying weapons.
She said it was not only the parents who were worried.
His school claimed it had “suspicions about him engaging in criminal activities” and had observed him in expensive clothes and with mobile phones.
The boy insisted that he had never been part of a gang, nor “involved in gangs in any way” and “does not know anyone involved in a gang” and does not carry a knife.
He acknowledged in his statements that “my behaviour wasn’t the best” and said he thought that was the reason his parents sent him to Africa.
The case centred on the question of parental responsibility, and whether the parents acted unlawfully by sending their son to boarding school without his consent.
In a statement issued after the judgement, his parents 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, said the court judgment had been a “real shock” to the teenager.
“He was obviously incredibly disappointed, incredibly upset and is considering his next steps carefully.”
‘I want to have an education’
The boy’s barrister, Deirdre Fottrell KC, pointed out the school was not simply far from home – but a completely different jurisdiction.
The boy wrote that his education was suffering. He felt the Ghanaian classes were not as challenging as those in his English school, and he had been out of formal education entirely since last summer, studying online.
“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,” he wrote.
His father has recently visited him in Ghana, and he told the court that he and his son had got on well.
He said he would like his son to remain in Ghana, that they visited a different boarding school where the boy could be considered for a place, and were both very impressed.
However, questioned by Ms Fottrell, he acknowledged there was no place in that school until September, and that his son had not said he wanted to go there.
The boy’s solicitor said he had recently seen a rise in similar cases where teenagers were trying to return to the UK.
“Teenagers are often placed in exceptionally challenging or vulnerable situations, and are now beginning to turn to the court for protection,” Mr Netto said.
He recounted having seen cases where “in their parents’ eyes” young people were “falling in with the wrong crowd or are adopting what their parents see as unorthodox or challenging behaviours”.
Following the judgment, he added: “We have already received enquiries from young people in exactly the same situation as this young man.”
Court rules parents acted within “the generous ambit of parental decision taking”
Other media outlets report that despite his efforts to return home, the judge ruled that the teenager “is at real risk of suffering greater harm in returning to the UK than if he were to remain in Ghana.
“I recognise that this is, in many ways, both a sobering and rather depressing conclusion,” the judge stated, adding that the decision to send the boy abroad fell within “the generous ambit of parental decision taking.”
The ruling was made even though the court acknowledged that the boy’s home was in London and that his views “should be afforded significant weight.”
Barrister Amean Elgadhy of 4PB, representing parties in the case, remarked: “This case is interesting because in this instance, it was accepted that the boy’s home was in London, but they decided he should remain in Ghana anyway.
“It highlights the very real risks of potential gang involvement in London, and it directly engages the tensions between the rights of the child and the views of the parents.”
The High Court heard evidence that the teenager had a history of poor school attendance, displayed aggression, and was vulnerable to grooming. There were also allegations of phone theft and concerning Snapchat conversations.
Rebecca Foulkes, representing the boy’s father, stated that social workers had previously raised concerns about difficulties in managing the boy’s behavior before he left the UK.
“In trying to manage them, the mother was using physical aggression on occasion to do so,” she said.
Social workers reported that the boy was frequently late to class, sometimes stayed out late, and had been observed wearing expensive clothes and possessing multiple phones. His school also expressed “suspicions about him engaging in criminal activities.”
Ms. Foulkes added: “From the father’s perspective, there was a clear deterioration in his son’s behaviours with a move towards criminal behaviours. There is no real acceptance from him of the risks to which he was exposing himself.”
Read also:
Terrorists demand N40m ransom to free kidnapped Makurdi uni female students
