An Interesting Tale Of Parental Authority
Part II
An Interesting Tale of Parental Authority & Judicial Intervention Part II
Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana) [2025] EWCA Civ 1011
S did not let matters rest, he decided to apply to appeal the decision, and on 12 June 2025 his permission application was heard and permission to appeal was granted. Wardship was re-instated and a direction for the case to be re-heard before another judge of the Family Division.
Appeals from the High Court are heard by the Court of Appeal. The judgement in this application was handed down on 29th July 2025.
The principle parties to the appeal were S and his parents. But there were also two intervenors: the International Centre for Family Law Policy and Practice (‘ICFLPP’) and the Association of Lawyers for Children (‘ALC’)
Grounds for Appeal
When appealing, the applicant must have grounds for appeal: the grounds must centre on there being an error made in the underlying judgment, either in fact, law or procedure.
In this case, S’s lawyers set out the following grounds:
Conflation of Parental Responsibility with Judicial Welfare Analysis: S’s lawyers argued that Mr Justice Hayden had improperly merged two distinct tasks:
Failure to Properly Account for Harm in Ghana :While the High Court judgment detailed risks of harm if S returned to England, it failed to:
Insufficient Weight Given to S’s Wishes and Feelings: Although S was accepted as Gillick competent, the High Court did not adequately factor his views into the welfare decision. His strong desire to return to England was not meaningfully weighed, despite statutory obligations under s.1(3)(a) of the Children Act.
Premature Final Determination Without Viable Care Plan: At the time of the High Court hearing, there was:
(Minimally Pursued) Challenge to Findings of Fact: This ground was not actively pursued during oral submissions, and the Court of Appeal upheld Hayden J’s factual findings about S’s life in England and risk of gang involvement.
What the Court of Appeal Held
The appeal was allowed due to flaws in the process of evaluation by the underlying Judge, not necessarily the outcome. The re-hearing judge may reach the same conclusion, but only after properly considering all relevant welfare factors.
Key Legal Findings
Clarification on Gillick Competence
The Court clarified that Gillick competence, while relevant to medical consent, does not carry direct legal weight in welfare decisions under the Children Act 1989. However, it remains a useful indicator of maturity and should inform how much weight is given to a child’s views.
Temporary Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision underscores the fundamental principle that a child’s welfare must remain the paramount consideration in wardship proceedings. By identifying procedural flaws and an inadequate assessment of S’s lived experience and expressed wishes on his life in Ghana, the judgment affirms the judiciary’s duty to scrutinise all relevant factors before making life-altering determinations.
The case serves as a vital reminder that even well-intentioned decisions must be grounded in thorough, child-centred analysis, especially when the stakes involve a child’s safety, identity, and emotional wellbeing.
S will now get a re-hearing, where the new judge will assess the factors referred to in the appeal which were not considered in the first case, and make a new decision based on all factors.
We will update once the decision from that re-hearing is published.