{"id":3001,"date":"2025-09-04T20:00:34","date_gmt":"2025-09-04T19:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/?p=3001"},"modified":"2025-09-04T20:00:36","modified_gmt":"2025-09-04T19:00:36","slug":"parental-authority-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/archives\/3001","title":{"rendered":"Parental Authority II"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n

An Interesting Tale Of Parental Authority<\/h2><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Part II<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

An Interesting Tale of Parental Authority & Judicial Intervention Part II<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana)<\/em><\/strong> [2025] EWCA Civ 1011<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Appeals from the High Court are heard by the Court of Appeal.  The judgement in this application was handed down on 29th July 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 (\u2018ICFLPP\u2019) and the Association of Lawyers for Children (\u2018ALC\u2019)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Grounds for Appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In this case, S\u2019s lawyers set out the following grounds:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Conflation of Parental Responsibility with Judicial Welfare Analysis: <\/strong>S\u2019s lawyers argued that Mr Justice Hayden had improperly merged two distinct tasks:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Evaluating whether the parents acted lawfully in removing S to Ghana<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Determining what was in S\u2019s best interests under the Children Act 1989, s.1<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Failure to Properly Account for Harm in Ghana :<\/strong>While the High Court judgment detailed risks of harm if S returned to England, it failed to:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Evaluate the emotional and psychological harm S had already suffered in Ghana<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Evaluate the emotional and psychological harm S had already suffered in Ghana<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Consider the ongoing distress and cultural displacement he described as \u201cliving in hell\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Insufficient Weight Given to S\u2019s Wishes and Feelings: <\/strong>Although S was accepted as Gillick<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Premature Final Determination Without Viable Care Plan: <\/strong>At the time of the High Court hearing, there was:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>No confirmed plan for S\u2019s care in England<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>No updated welfare report from the local authority<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>No evidence from extended family who might have cared for him<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

(Minimally Pursued) Challenge to Findings of Fact: <\/strong>This ground was not actively pursued during oral submissions, and the Court of Appeal upheld Hayden J\u2019s factual findings about S\u2019s life in England and risk of gang involvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the Court of Appeal Held<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Key Legal Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Conflation of Parental Responsibility and Welfare Analysis: <\/strong>The Court found that Hayden J had blurred the line between assessing the lawfulness of the parents\u2019 decision and conducting an independent welfare evaluation. In wardship, the child\u2019s welfare must be the paramount consideration, not the legitimacy of parental choices. The appeal contended that the judge gave undue weight to the lawfulness of the parents\u2019 actions, rather than conducting an independent welfare assessment.<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Failure to Evaluate Harm in Ghana: <\/strong>The High Court focused heavily on risks in England but did not properly assess the emotional and psychological harm S had suffered and might continue to suffer by being forced to remain in Ghana. The Court of Appeal found this imbalance in the harm analysis to be a serious flaw.<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Insufficient Weight to S\u2019s Wishes and Feelings:<\/strong> Although S was accepted as Gillick<\/em> competent, the High Court failed to adequately factor his strongly expressed desire to return to England into the welfare analysis. His statements describing life in Ghana as \u201cliving in hell\u201d were not sufficiently addressed.<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>Premature Final Determination: <\/strong>The High Court made a final decision without a viable care plan for S\u2019s return to England. The Court of Appeal held that further investigation, such as a welfare report or evidence from potential carers, should have been pursued before concluding the case.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Clarification on Gillick Competence<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Court clarified that Gillick<\/em> 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\u2019s views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

T<\/strong>emporary<\/em><\/strong> Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Court of Appeal\u2019s decision underscores the fundamental principle that a child\u2019s welfare must remain the paramount consideration in wardship proceedings. By identifying procedural flaws and an inadequate assessment of S\u2019s lived experience and expressed wishes on his life in Ghana, the judgment affirms the judiciary\u2019s duty to scrutinise all relevant factors before making life-altering determinations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

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\u2019s safety, identity, and emotional wellbeing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We will update once the decision from that re-hearing is published.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"zakra_page_container_layout":"customizer","zakra_page_sidebar_layout":"customizer","zakra_remove_content_margin":false,"zakra_sidebar":"customizer","zakra_transparent_header":"customizer","zakra_logo":0,"zakra_main_header_style":"default","zakra_menu_item_color":"","zakra_menu_item_hover_color":"","zakra_menu_item_active_color":"","zakra_menu_active_style":"","zakra_page_header":true,"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[174,175],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogs","category-children-matters"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false,"mailpoet_newsletter_max":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"Lea_NSW","author_link":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/archives\/author\/admin"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"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…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3001","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3001"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3001\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3003,"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3001\/revisions\/3003"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.no53legal.uk\/nws\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}