A 14-year-old boy from London recently lost a High Court case against his parents after they sent him to a boarding school in Ghana without his consent. The boy, who was described as shy, articulate, a keen cook, and a footballer, claimed his parents tricked him into going to Africa under the pretense of visiting a sick relative. He stated that he would have never agreed to go had he known he was being sent to boarding school.
The boy's parents expressed deep concern that he was being groomed into criminal activity in London. They feared for his safety and believed sending him to Ghana was a protective measure, not a punishment. The boy's mother referred to the tragic murder of Kelyan Bokassa, a 14-year-old boy stabbed to death on a bus in Woolwich in January, as "every parent's worst nightmare." She did not believe her son would survive in the UK and refused to be part of his "destruction."
The boy's school in London also suspected his potential involvement in criminal activities, having observed him wearing expensive clothes and carrying multiple mobile phones. However, the boy denied any involvement with gangs or carrying a knife, acknowledging that his behavior "wasn't the best" and suggesting that this was the reason his parents sent him to Africa.
In his written statement to the court, the boy described his experience in Ghana as "living in hell. " He stated that he was mocked and never settled in at the school. He struggled to understand what was going on and would get into fights. The boy contacted the British High Commission in Accra and the charity Children and Family Across Borders, desperately seeking to return to his old school in London.
High Court judge Mr. Justice Hayden recognized the case as a "sobering and rather depressing conclusion" but was satisfied that the parents' decision was driven by their "deep, obvious, and unconditional love." He believed the boy was at risk of suffering greater harm if he returned to the UK.
The boy's barrister, Deirdre Fottrell KC, emphasized that the school was not only far from home but in a completely different jurisdiction. The boy expressed concerns about his education suffering, finding the Ghanaian classes less challenging than those in his English school. He had been out of formal education since last summer, studying online, and felt that his brain was "hurt" and that he was becoming "dumber than people [he] used to be smarter than."
The boy's father recently visited him in Africa, and they reportedly got along well. The father expressed his desire for his son to remain in Ghana and mentioned visiting a different boarding school where the boy could be considered for a place in September. However, the boy had not expressed a desire to attend this school.
James Netto, from the International Family Law Group, which represented the boy, noted a recent rise in similar cases where teenagers were trying to return to the UK after being placed in challenging or vulnerable situations by their parents, who believed they were falling in with the wrong crowd or adopting unorthodox behaviors.
The case centered on parental responsibility and whether the parents acted unlawfully by sending their son to boarding school without his consent. In a statement issued after the judgment, the boy's parents acknowledged the difficult time for the family and emphasized that their priority had always been protecting their son, with a focus on moving forward as a family.
The boy's parents expressed deep concern that he was being groomed into criminal activity in London. They feared for his safety and believed sending him to Ghana was a protective measure, not a punishment. The boy's mother referred to the tragic murder of Kelyan Bokassa, a 14-year-old boy stabbed to death on a bus in Woolwich in January, as "every parent's worst nightmare." She did not believe her son would survive in the UK and refused to be part of his "destruction."
The boy's school in London also suspected his potential involvement in criminal activities, having observed him wearing expensive clothes and carrying multiple mobile phones. However, the boy denied any involvement with gangs or carrying a knife, acknowledging that his behavior "wasn't the best" and suggesting that this was the reason his parents sent him to Africa.
In his written statement to the court, the boy described his experience in Ghana as "living in hell. " He stated that he was mocked and never settled in at the school. He struggled to understand what was going on and would get into fights. The boy contacted the British High Commission in Accra and the charity Children and Family Across Borders, desperately seeking to return to his old school in London.
High Court judge Mr. Justice Hayden recognized the case as a "sobering and rather depressing conclusion" but was satisfied that the parents' decision was driven by their "deep, obvious, and unconditional love." He believed the boy was at risk of suffering greater harm if he returned to the UK.
The boy's barrister, Deirdre Fottrell KC, emphasized that the school was not only far from home but in a completely different jurisdiction. The boy expressed concerns about his education suffering, finding the Ghanaian classes less challenging than those in his English school. He had been out of formal education since last summer, studying online, and felt that his brain was "hurt" and that he was becoming "dumber than people [he] used to be smarter than."
The boy's father recently visited him in Africa, and they reportedly got along well. The father expressed his desire for his son to remain in Ghana and mentioned visiting a different boarding school where the boy could be considered for a place in September. However, the boy had not expressed a desire to attend this school.
James Netto, from the International Family Law Group, which represented the boy, noted a recent rise in similar cases where teenagers were trying to return to the UK after being placed in challenging or vulnerable situations by their parents, who believed they were falling in with the wrong crowd or adopting unorthodox behaviors.
The case centered on parental responsibility and whether the parents acted unlawfully by sending their son to boarding school without his consent. In a statement issued after the judgment, the boy's parents acknowledged the difficult time for the family and emphasized that their priority had always been protecting their son, with a focus on moving forward as a family.
