Gillick competent minors and parental authority: lessons from S v F and M [2025] EWHC 439 (Fam)

The recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in S v F and M [2025] EWHC 439 (Fam) highlights the delicate balance between the lawful exercise of parental responsibility and the wishes and feelings of a Gillick competent child.

Facts and judgment

S, born in the UK, was removed to Ghana by his parents in March 2024 under the pretext of visiting a sick relative. In reality, his parents had enrolled him in a Ghanaian boarding school without his prior knowledge. Their decision stemmed from growing concerns about S’s disengagement from school, his association with potentially harmful peer groups, and fears that he was being drawn into gang culture in London.

S objected to staying in Ghana and issued legal proceedings, arguing that his rights had been violated and that he should be allowed to return to the UK. The court ruled that:

• S’s habitual residence remained in the UK because the focus of his life was London, his move had been involuntary, and he had gone to great efforts to secure his return;
• S was a Gillick competent child whose wishes, in light of his age and understanding, were significant, though not determinative;
• While S’s removal to Ghana had been deceitful, his parents’ actions fell within the wide ambit of parental responsibility; and
• Despite acknowledging S’s distress and the parental breach of trust, returning to the UK would pose a greater risk to S’s welfare. Given the evidence of S’s potential exposure to criminal influences, his best interests lay in remaining in Ghana under family supervision.

Parental authority versus children’s rights

The case underscores the enduring principle that parents hold primary responsibility for their child’s upbringing. However, it also affirms that this authority has limits: parental decisions must align with the child’s welfare and must not cross into mistreatment or significant harm.

The court also recognised that S, at 14 years old, had a right under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC) to have his views taken into account. The case, thus, raised the thorny issue of whether a competent minor’s preference should override parental authority.

The court recognised that while parental authority is broad it is not absolute, and that resolution of an application concerning a Gillick competent child requires the child’s own views to be factored into a best interests decision relating to his/her welfare, ultimately concluding that it must look at the child’s welfare interests in the round.

Parental responsibility and harm