S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana rehearing), Re

In wardship proceedings, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and must be assessed through a global, holistic and multi-faceted evaluation of all realistic options. The child’s wishes and feelings may carry considerable weight, particularly where they are consistent and informed by increasing maturity, but they must be evaluated alongside emotional, physical and educational needs, risks of harm, stability of care and education, and the feasibility of each proposed arrangement.

The welfare checklist in the Children Act is not technically applicable to wardship, but its factors may be considered by analogy as a useful analytical tool. A return to parental care may properly be deferred where the parents oppose it, the proposed care arrangement is uncertain, and the risks of breakdown and further harm remain insufficiently addressed.

S, aged nearly 15, was born and brought up in England. In March 2024 his parents took him to Ghana and left him there in the care of relatives and at boarding school, because they considered that he faced serious risks from gang-related and criminal activity in England. S sought wardship orders requiring his return.

Hayden J dismissed the application and discharged the wardship: [2025] EWHC 439 (Fam). The Court of Appeal allowed S’s appeal and remitted the matter for rehearing: [2025] EWCA Civ 1011. On rehearing, the central issue was whether S’s welfare required an immediate or near-term return to England, despite his parents’ opposition and the unresolved risks identified in the earlier proceedings, or whether he should remain in Ghana while therapeutic and safeguarding work was undertaken.

1. Outcome. S should remain living in Ghana. The court set the aim of a return to England after completion of his GCSEs, subject to review and the creation of a clear family and support plan.
2. The court’s paramount consideration was S’s welfare. It adopted a holistic, global and multi-faceted evaluation of the competing options, taking account of all relevant advantages, disadvantages and risks. This approach was supported by Re G (A Child)(Care Order: Proportionality) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 and Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1147.
3. Although the statutory welfare checklist was not technically applicable to wardship, the court could consider its factors by analogy as a useful analysis tool, following Re NY (Abduction: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2019] UKSC 49.
4. S’s wishes to return were consistent and carried considerable weight. They could not, however, be considered in isolation. The court weighed them against the unresolved risks of gang-related harm, the parents’ opposition, the possibility of a failed return followed by foster care, emotional harm, and disruption to S’s education.
5. The proposed immediate return lacked a sufficiently stable care arrangement because the parents were the only realistic carers but did not support a return at that time. The risk of breakdown, further emotional harm and exposure to the previously identified risks was therefore high.
6. The preferable course was for S, his parents and the wider family to undertake family therapy and specialist support work, with local-authority involvement and possible assistance from BHAO. A planned transition supported by the parents was more likely to meet S’s welfare needs than a return against their wishes.

• High Court (Family Division): Hayden J dismissed S’s wardship application and discharged the wardship: [2025] EWHC 439 (Fam).
• Court of Appeal: S’s appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for rehearing before another judge of the Family Division: [2025] EWCA Civ 1011.
• High Court (Family Division): On rehearing, Mrs Justice Theis directed that S remain in Ghana, with a proposed return after his GCSEs subject to further review.