A (A Child) (Application for return from Ghana), Re [2026] EWHC 627 (Fam)

This judgment was handed down in private by distribution to the parties by email. The judge has given leave for this anonymised version of the judgment (and any facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family and their addresses must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

[2026] EWHC 627 (Fam)

Case No FD23P00010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 26 February 2026

Before

MR JUSTICE HARRISON

Between

Applicant fatherApplicant

Respondent motherRespondent

Respondent childRespondent

In the matter of A (A Child) (Application for return from Ghana)

APPROVED JUDGMENT

Hearing Hearing dates: 26, 27, 28 and 29 January 2026

Ms Anita Guha KC and Mr Tadhgh Barwell O’Connor (instructed by The International Family Law Group) for the applicant father

Mr Charles Hale KC and Ms Martha Gray (instructed by Goodman Ray Solicitors) for the first respondent mother

Mr Jonathan Evans (instructed by Cafcass Legal) for the second respondent child

Introduction

[1]A is a 9 year old girl. In common with her parents (‘the father’ and ‘the mother’) she has dual British and Ghanaian nationality.

[2]In August 2021, the mother took A to Ghana without the father’s knowledge. She left her there to be cared for by the maternal grandmother before returning to England. A was thus abandoned in a country where neither of her parents was living. The grandmother had a stroke in December 2024. Since January 2025, A has been living in Accra with the mother’s friend NO.

[3]The father wants A to be returned to England to live with him. Conversely, the mother says that A should remain in Ghana, asserting that she intends to join her in NO’s home at the end of March 2026.

[4]In September 2023 I gave a judgment refusing to order A’s return from Ghana on a summary basis and determining this court’s jurisdiction to make welfare orders: see Re A (Child) (Removal to non-Hague country)

[2023] EWFC 330

[5]I record my gratitude for the assistance provided to me by leading and junior counsel for the parties as well as their instructing solicitors. The father has been represented by Ms Guha KC and Mr Barwell O’Connor; the mother by Mr Hale KC and Ms Gray; A (through her Guardian Ms Callaghan) by Mr Evans. As Ms Callaghan has emphasised, this is a finely balanced case. There is no easy answer.

[6]The legal principles which underpin my decision are relatively straightforward. A’s interests are my paramount consideration. I must have regard to the welfare checklist.

[7]I must also bear in mind the presumption that each parent’s involvement in A’s life will further her welfare. The term ‘involvement’ is widely defined in s 2B of the Children Act 1989 and can include indirect involvement. All parties accept that both parents should continue to be involved in their daughter’s life; the issues relate to their degree of involvement.

[8]The court’s approach to making findings of fact is well known and I shall not lengthen this judgment by reciting this at length. The key principles are set out in a judgment I gave last year reported as Re A (A Child) (Abduction from Pakistan)

[2025] EWHC 2637 (Fam)

at para 189 onwards.

[9]In circumstances where I have found the parties and another witness to have lied, it has been necessary for me to apply the principles in R v Lucas

[1981] QB 720

(referred to at para 192 of Re A (supra)). I have also had to have regard to the inherent probabilities in assertions made and denied by those who gave evidence.

[10]I will turn next to deal with my assessment of the lay witnesses. I will then set out the background before addressing in separate sections of this judgment two issues which have been the subject of considerable focus at this hearing: the father’s use of cannabis and the mother’s intentions and plans. In the remainder of the judgment, I deal with the evidence of A’s Guardian, the parties’ submissions and my analysis and conclusions.

[11]Throughout the judgment, I have made various findings of fact. These are all made on the balance of probabilities. I have borne in mind that the burden of proof rests on the person making the allegation and have applied the principles to which I made reference at paragraphs 8 and 9 above.

The lay witnesses

[12]Over the course of four days I heard evidence from both parents, NO and the mother’s new partner SA. Before I deal with the background and make findings on disputed issues of fact, I shall set out my general impression and findings in relation to the evidence of each of these witnesses.

The father

[13]The father cares very deeply about his daughter and has been profoundly hurt by the mother’s actions in cutting him out of her life. His love for his daughter shone through his evidence and I have no doubt that he is motivated to achieve what he considers to be in her best interests. I do, however, consider that he lacks empathy with the difficult situation in which the mother found herself when the parents’ relationship broke down and that he continues to hold her responsible for that breakdown. I was troubled by his evidence that he retains on his mobile telephone intimate photographs of the mother with another man, one of which was seen by A.

[14]I also regret to say that the father has not been open and frank with either the Guardian or the court about one important issue in particular: his use of cannabis. He gave evidence about this which I find to be untrue. This inevitably has an impact on his credibility more generally and requires me to be cautious about his evidence. I believe that the reason he has been untruthful about his cannabis use is that he feared that the truth was likely to harm his case. This has caused me to bear in mind that the same motive might well have led to him being less than frank in relation to other matters. I have reminded myself, however, that the fact that he has lied about an important matter does not necessarily mean that he has lied about others or that I should reject the whole of his evidence.

[15]I further find that the father has a tendency to minimise the challenges he would face if he were now to become a full-time carer for his daughter.

The mother

[16]I accept that the mother loves her daughter and that she seeks to achieve a good life for her. I find, however, that she is wholly lacking in insight as to the impact which her actions have had on A, in particular having her relationship with her father severed and being abandoned in a country where neither parent was living. I consider that she feels hostility and resentment towards the father and fails to appreciate the important role that he and the paternal family have to play in A’s life. Asked to identify the father’s positive qualities which could benefit A, her depressing response was ‘I can’t think of any’.

[17]I also find that the mother has been repeatedly dishonest during the course of these proceedings, including in her written and oral evidence, and that her evidence generally was very unreliable (more so than the father’s evidence). I find that the mother has given untruthful evidence as she believes that this will assist her in achieving the outcome to these proceedings she desires. I have also, in her case, reminded myself that the fact that she may not have told the truth about some matters does not require me to reject the whole of her evidence. I am, however, led to approach her evidence with great caution.

[18]The mother’s stance as to her future plans has repeatedly shifted. This, combined with the extent of her dishonesty throughout these proceedings, makes it difficult for me to take at face value the assertions she makes as to her present intentions. I have considered this aspect of the evidence with particular care.

[19]In my view the mother finds the father’s role in A’s life to be a source of irritation. I believe that one of the reasons for her stated desire to relocate to Ghana is her belief that by adopting this stance she will be able to avoid having to interact with him on a regular basis in relation to the arrangements for A. She came close to admitting this in her oral evidence. She justified her position that she should wait until A is aged 13 before returning to England on the basis that at this age A will be able to ‘do things for herself’ and ‘make decisions for herself’. In August 2025 the mother made clear to the Guardian that she anticipated returning to England at a time when A would be old enough to move freely between homes without the need for interaction between the parents.

[20]A desire to avoid interacting with the father, in my judgment, is not the only reason for the mother’s position. In her evidence, the mother came across as a person who has become worn down by the hard life she leads as well as by the stress of these prolonged proceedings. I find that she has come to the conclusion that she is unable to provide proper care for A in this jurisdiction herself without considerable support, which she is unable easily to afford. In contrast, in Ghana she will be able to receive that support from her close friend, NO, who has been parenting A for approximately a year and will be able to continue to act in a parenting role for however long the mother decides to live with her in her home (more on this below). I also believe that the mother is likely to be anxious about the maternal grandmother’s declining health; being near to her is part of her motive for wishing to be in Ghana. I further accept that she wishes to live in closer proximity to her partner, SA, even though the two of them are not planning to live together.

[21]I found SA to be straightforward as a witness. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence he gave me. It is, however, of relatively peripheral relevance to the issues I have to decide. SA has played a limited role in A’s day-to-day life, although it is to his credit that he has been willing to provide financial assistance for her by funding her school fees.

[22]I found NO to be unimpressive as a witness. She was obviously loyal to the mother and, in my view, she was prepared to give untruthful evidence to the court where she thought it would assist her friend’s case. I was also troubled by NO’s failure, when asked, to identify the father as an important person in A’s life. I do accept that NO is providing good physical care for A and it is to her credit that she has been willing to take over her primary care after the maternal grandmother’s health was seriously compromised by the stroke she suffered.

Background

[23]The father was born in Ghana and is now aged 56. He moved to live in England when he was in his twenties and has lived here since then. He previously worked as a postman but, as a consequence of his ill health, he retired early when he was in his forties.

[24]The mother was also born in Ghana and is now aged 35. She has lived in England since 2017 and works for the NHS as a ‘bank’ nurse doing mainly night shifts.

[25]The father has chronic renal failure (or ‘End Stage Kidney Disease’) which requires him to have four hours of dialysis every other day. He has a machine at home which enables him to do this. He is on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. In September 2023, the father told the previous Guardian, Mr Lill, that his health was deteriorating and that his mobility was affected. He has produced a letter dated 13 January 2026 from Dr Cormac Breen, his treating consultant, in which Dr Breen has commented in cautious terms on the father’s prognosis. He says that while ‘it is impossible to speculate in more than general terms… there are no aspects of [the father’s] clinical condition at present that indicate a risk of deterioration or death’. Asked to comment on the impact of the father’s cannabis use, Dr Breen responded that he was not aware of such use.

[26]As the father accepts, he has in fact been a regular user of cannabis since he was in his twenties. He says that the main reason he used cannabis during the parties’ relationship was to relieve the pain associated with his renal failure. At the end of 2022 he says that he underwent a medical assessment which revealed that his use of cannabis was causing complications to his condition.

[27]According to the father’s statement dated 9 January 2024, he stopped using the drug at the end of 2022 apart from a single inadvertent puff at a party in November 2023. In that statement he goes on to say:

“I make absolutely clear that I would never engage in recreational drug use moving forwards, especially as I want to be a good role model for [A]. The use of any non-prescribed drugs at this point could have a detrimental impact on my physical health. Put simply, if I were to take cannabis or any other recreational drug, then this could be fatal. I would not risk my life over recreational drugs.”

[28]Given what the father says about his 2022 medical assessment and the potentially life-threatening consequences of his continued cannabis use, it is surprising (to say the least) that he has withheld this information from Dr Breen. It means that Dr Breen’s opinions about his prognosis, even though cautiously expressed, are inherently unreliable.

[29]The father was previously married and has two adult children by that first marriage. One lives with his mother in the North of England and the other is living with his girlfriend near London.

[30]The parties met in 2012 and were married in Ghana in 2015. A, the only child they have together, was born in January 2017.

[31]The parties did not initially live together during their marriage, save for a period of three months after the marriage when the father remained in Ghana. Theirs was a long-distance relationship during which they would meet periodically when the father travelled to Ghana.

[32]When A was born in January 2017 the father was in London. He met her for the first time in March 2017 on one of his visits to Ghana. After a couple of weeks, the father returned to London, while the mother and A remained in Ghana.

[33]In August 2017 the father was able to obtain a spousal visa for the mother and the following month she and A moved to England to join him in his one-bedroom flat.

[34]The relationship soon became unhappy and it proved to be short-lived. In October 2019 the mother and A were required by the father to leave the family home following what the father describes as ‘an altercation where she called the police’.

[35]Each of the parties has made allegations of abuse against the other in relation to the period when they lived together. I have not been asked to make findings about these disputed issues. Having heard the parties give evidence, I have no doubt that the two years in which they lived together in the small flat will have been characterised by arguments and tension. A major source of that tension is likely to have been the father’s ongoing use of cannabis. I am satisfied that the mother, justifiably, will have objected to him using the drug at home and that, as a longstanding user accustomed to living in his home as a single man, the father will have felt affronted by her efforts to constrain him.

[36]The mother told me in evidence, and I accept, that she finds it difficult to sleep at night. For that reason, she prefers to work night shifts as she is often tired during the day. When the parties were living together the mother worked regular shifts; she would leave home at around 6pm and return at 9am the following morning. While she was working, A was cared for at home by the father. She accepts that he was able to do so and has not raised any issues about the care he provided his infant daughter.

[37]As I have already made clear, I accept the mother’s evidence that despite her objections the father persisted in smoking cannabis during their relationship. I accept his evidence that he did not do so while caring for A or directly in front of her. The mother acknowledges that he would sometimes retreat to his car to smoke, but I accept that there were also occasions when he smoked at home until his sister intervened and persuaded him to smoke outdoors only. Even if he did not smoke in front of A, I consider his use of the drug at home to be a major failing on his part. During the period he occasionally smoked indoors, A will have been exposed to the smoke, albeit indirectly. The mother’s suggestion in her statement that the father was dealing cannabis was not explored in evidence and I make no finding on it.

[38]It is unnecessary for me to make findings about what finally caused the marriage to end. It is clear to me that by the Autumn 2019 it was no longer possible for the parties to live together as their relationship had become volatile. It is likely, in my view, that the mother’s working pattern and her consequent tiredness during the day will have contributed to the tense environment at home. A will have witnessed the parties’ arguments.

[39]It is notable that when the parties finally separated, it was the mother and A who were required to leave the flat and find somewhere else to live. The father could not easily have moved out as a result of his need for regular dialysis from the machine installed at his home but could potentially have made arrangements to afford the mother more time to find alternative accommodation. In my view, the father was wholly insensitive to the difficulties which the mother is likely to have faced at this juncture. She found herself homeless in a country where she had only lived for two years, where she had a limited support network and lacked a secure immigration status. She had to care for a young child and earn a living working long anti-social hours. The mother sought assistance from Shelter on 9 October 2019 and was referred to Lewisham Social Services.

[40]In the days and weeks following the separation the mother and A were able to stay with two different friends, then in different bed and breakfast accommodation, then in temporary accommodation in Chatham and then in further temporary accommodation in London. In December 2019 they were finally moved to more permanent housing. I have no difficulty in accepting that this period will have been enormously difficult for the mother and that it is likely to have left her with deep feelings of resentment towards the father who was able to continue to live in his home while providing (or more accurately offering to provide) her with only limited financial support.

[41]Following the separation, communication between the parties became difficult. I reject the mother’s evidence that she did not hear at all from the father in 2020. This assertion is plainly untrue. He has produced evidence showing that at least from July 2020 he was sending WhatsApp messages attempting to reestablish contact. His efforts were either ignored or rebuffed. So too were his attempts to send money for A. In December 2020, for example, the mother sent him a message asking for his bank details so that she could return his money.

[42]The same pattern continued in 2021; the mother’s claim that ‘pretty much the next I heard from the father was in September 2021’ is similarly untrue. On 8 February 2021 the mother sent the father an abrasive message again rejecting an offer he made to send her money. Amongst other things she said ‘If we could stay over a year without wanting a dime from you what makes you think we need something from you now’. She clearly remained bitter about the circumstances of the parties’ separation and was unable to prioritise A’s need for a relationship with her father.

[43]In August 2021 the mother took A to Ghana without informing the father. After a few weeks, the mother returned to England leaving A in the care of the maternal grandmother. Her actions were plainly a violation of the father’s parental responsibility as well as a ‘wrongful removal’ under Art 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention. She may also have committed a criminal offence contrary to section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, although that is not an issue I have to decide. From A’s perspective, being separated from her primary carer at the age of four and abandoned in an unfamiliar country is likely to have caused her serious emotional harm. All the more so, when just two years previously her relationship with her father had been suddenly severed. Whatever his faults, he had played a major caring role in her life for two years.

[44]In order for A to travel to Ghana, the mother obtained a Ghanaian passport for her without informing the father. Her oral evidence was that she asserted on the passport application form that she was not in contact with the father. This was a dishonest assertion. The father had been sending her messages since the separation and she knew how to contact him. As she accepted in evidence, she knew that the father had parental responsibility for A. She also knew the father’s address; her assertion in evidence that ‘he could have moved out’ was disingenuous.

[45]In her oral evidence the mother made the bizarre claim that at the conclusion of what was intended to be a holiday A, then aged 4, had said that she did not want to return to England; consequently, the mother said, she decided to leave her daughter in Ghana to be cared for by the maternal grandmother. I am unable to accept that A would have made such a remark; the fact that the mother even ventures it as an explanation is an illustration of her lack of insight into her daughter’s needs and the harm she has suffered as a result of her actions. To make such a major decision on the basis of a four-year-old child’s expressed wish would amount to a serious parenting failure.

[46]The real reason for the mother’s actions, in my judgment, is that she felt unable to care for A while she was studying to become a nurse as well as working to support herself. In July 2021 there had been an incident when A went missing from her home for approximately 45 minutes. The police had become involved and made a referral to social services. This incident is likely to have caused the mother to realise that she was unable safely to parent A and to take drastic action. She did not contemplate consulting the father before acting as she did. As far as she was concerned, he had no role to play in her daughter’s life.

[47]Having returned to England, the mother continued to conceal from the father the fact that she had left A in Ghana. I reject the mother’s assertion in evidence that the father called her in September 2021 and stated that he knew that A was in Ghana.

[48]On 4 October 2021, the father made an application for a child arrangements order to the Family Court at East London. He has not adequately explained why it took him so long to take such a step. In December 2019 he attended a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting or ‘MIAM’ but the mother made clear that she did not wish to mediate. He received a letter from the MIAM provider advising him that his next step was to issue proceedings, but it took him almost two years to do so.

[49]In response to the father’s application a Cafcass Officer, Ms Joanne Turner, prepared a standard letter dated 23 November 2021 after speaking to both parents. The mother has claimed, including in her oral evidence, that she informed Ms Turner that A was now living in Ghana, but in my judgment this claim is untrue. Had the mother conveyed information of such significance Ms Turner would undoubtedly have mentioned it in her letter. Instead she recorded that A lived with her mother which, at that time, was no longer the case. Various recommendations were made by Cafcass including for the parents to file statements and for a full section 7 report.

[50]There was a directions hearing on 15 March 2022, but I have not seen the resulting order. On 7 July 2022 the proceedings were transferred from the Family Court at East London to its sister court in West London. There was an ineffective hearing shortly thereafter before the matter came substantively before the court on 22 November 2022.

[51]The hearing on 22 November 2022 was listed before a legal adviser with a Cafcass Officer also in attendance. The order records that the mother informed the court that A was currently living in Ghana, explaining that she was in full time education and struggling with childcare. In my judgment, this was the first time the mother made known to the father or the court that she had removed A to Ghana. The proceedings were allocated to a Circuit Judge and listed on 5 December 2022. The father was advised by the legal adviser that he might wish to make an application to the High Court.

[52]On 5 December 2022, in circumstances where the father indicated that he would be acting on the legal adviser’s suggestion that he apply to the High Court, no order was made on his application.

[53]On 9 January 2023, the father issued an application in Form C66 seeking A’s return to England. There were then various interim hearings. An order made on 20 July 2023 recited that the mother intended to return A to England from Ghana at the conclusion of her studies in 2025.

[54]On 15 September 2023 a report was prepared in relation to A’s wishes and feelings by Mr Nick Lill of the Cafcass High Court Team. Mr Lill was led to believe that A was attending X International School in Ghana and spoke to the principal of that school on 7 September 2023. The principal spoke positively about A and her progress at the school; the mother was said to be actively involved in her education. Mr Lill was not, however, told that by the date of his conversation with the principal, A had been removed from that school and enrolled instead at Y school. I can think of no good explanation why the principal may have misled Mr Lill in this way and I therefore find it difficult to rely upon any of the information conveyed by him on behalf of the school. The mother was determined to conceal the identity of the school from the father. She did so, in my judgment, in order to hide the fact that without consulting the father she had moved A to a new school. She will have appreciated that a recent change of school would seriously undermine her case that A was leading a stable and happy existence in Ghana which should not be interrupted.

[55]A was able to speak to Mr Lill on 31 August 2023 when she had no idea that she was about to be moved to a new school. She spoke warmly about her existing school, her teachers and her friends and said that she was looking forward to the start of the next academic year. The mother’s action in changing A’s school in an unplanned way is another example of her failure to see things from her daughter’s perspective. This was another significant change for A for which she was wholly unprepared. She had no opportunity to say goodbye to her friends. A’s understanding at the time she spoke to Mr Lill was that she would be remaining at the same school in Ghana until 2024 when she would return to her mother’s care in England. She told Mr Lill that she would be happy to join her mother at this juncture.

[56]The application came before me substantively on 28 September 2023. For reasons set out in my previous judgment, I declined to make an order for A to return to England on a summary basis. At that stage the mother’s position continued to be that she would return A in 2025. Mr Lill gave evidence at the hearing, among other things telling the court that A appeared to be doing well at school in Ghana; he did not know about the recent change and the mother remained silent about this. Had I been told about the new school and this further instability in A’s life, my welfare evaluation might well have been different. The mother’s failure to reveal this information is inexcusable.

[57]On 31 October 2023, I required the mother to disclose to the father details of A’s school and, consequently, the name and address of Y school was recited in the order. It was not, however, made clear that this was a different school from the one which Mr Lill had recently contacted. This was obviously material information.

[58]On 29 November 2023 the mother filed a statement in which she disclosed for the first time that there had been a change of school. She stated, in my judgment with deliberate vagueness, that the change had occurred ‘in the summer’ but did not explain the move or her decision to conceal it from the court previously. In that statement she reiterated her wish for A to return to England in 2025.

[59]On 23 January 2024, A had an introductory video call with the father facilitated by Mr Lill. It was the first time she had spoken to him for over four years. It was a positive experience for her. A further successful call took place soon afterwards.

[60]On 20 February 2024 the matter came before me for a substantive hearing. By that stage the major issue between the parties appeared to have narrowed. In response to the mother’s previous position that A should remain in Ghana until 2025, the father had compromised and agreed that she could stay there until the summer of that year. The mother, however, shifted her position. She now contended that the move back to England should not take place until the summer of 2026. After hearing submissions, I listed the matter for a case management hearing in early 2025. The mother’s position had been that the proceedings should be brought to an end on the basis of her undertaking (recorded on the face of the order) that she would return A to this jurisdiction by no later than 1 September 2026.

[61]In March 2024, A started having regular video calls with her father. In accordance with the order dated 20 February 2024, these were initially scheduled to take place on a fortnightly basis; they later increased in frequency to weekly pursuant to an order dated 27 January 2025 and then to twice weekly pursuant to an order dated 22 July 2025. A made and/or received the calls from the home of the mother’s friend NO, who has a better internet connection than the maternal grandmother. They have not always taken place as planned although for the most part they have been facilitated without issue. There is no suggestion that they have been anything other than a positive experience for A.

[62]Over the summer 2024, A came to stay in England with the mother for approximately a month. The order of 20 February 2024 contained provision for the father to have contact with A on dates to be agreed with ICFA, a specialist service offered through Cafcass to assist in rebuilding children’s relationships with parents. The order contemplated that there would be 3 to 4 sessions offered by ICFA with alternative provision for professional supervision. There was an expectation that there would be two sessions a week, each lasting for a minimum of two hours. In fact, for reasons which are not clear to me, only three sessions of contact took place. They all went well from A’s perspective.

[63]In December 2024, the maternal grandmother had a stroke and was hospitalised. A had to be cared for by the mother’s friend, NO. This was obviously a further significant change for A. The mother did not immediately tell the father, in breach of paragraph 4 of the order dated 19 February 2024. In my judgment, she concealed this information as she realised that revealing it would strengthen the father’s case that A should be returned to England in 2025 and not in 2026 as she was at that time contending.

[64]It has now become clear from the evidence given by NO that A moved to live in her home (at the latest) in early to mid-January 2025. This four-bedroom property is occupied also by NO’s three year old son, J. NO has an older step-daughter, D, who is at university but also stays in the home during her holidays. NO’s adult niece, F, also sometimes stays there. NO remains in a relationship with J and D’s father, although he has been living and working in another country for three years during which he has not been back to see his children. NO’s evidence is that A does not like to sleep alone and will sometimes share a bed with J and her; at other times she shares a bed with NO’s niece, F.

[65]At the hearing on 27 January 2025, the mother misled the court by representing that A was continuing to live with her grandmother (see paragraph 2 of her position statement for that hearing). She continued to mislead the father in correspondence about this issue. Asked specifically whether A had moved to live with one of the mother’s friends, the mother’s solicitors responded to the effect that she continued to live with her grandmother but had been ‘staying’ with the friend from Monday to Friday over the past couple of weeks to enable the grandmother to attend various physiotherapy appointments. This was a deliberate misrepresentation by the mother, in my judgment, made for the same reason as that to which I referred in the paragraph 63. As recently as 19 June 2025, the mother referred in her statement to having arranged for A to ‘temporarily stay on weekdays’ at NO’s home. This was an untrue description of the arrangement.

[66]The position was made worse by the mother’s refusal then to disclose the address where A was now living, despite repeated requests from the father’s solicitors which were simply ignored. On 20 March 2025, the mother’s solicitors wrote that the mother was unwilling to disclose her friend’s address. They also once again communicated her untrue instructions that the arrangements for A were ‘temporary’. The lack of frank information had the consequence that items sent by the father for A to her grandmother’s home were returned undelivered. The Guardian’s solicitors made their own request to be provided with A’s address, but this request was also initially ignored.

[67]On 9 April 2025, the mother’s solicitors wrote on instructions once again communicating the untrue position that A’s living arrangements with her friend were temporary; the falsehood was maintained on 14 April 2025. The mother refused to reveal the address, even to the Guardian. In this letter the mother, through her solicitors, described NO for the first time as A’s ‘godmother’, a description she has maintained in her evidence. In my judgment, it is a false description. I accept the father’s evidence that A’s only godmother is his cousin. NO was not even present at the naming ceremony and has hardly ever met the father. In her oral evidence, NO was initially unable to identify A’s godmother before then claiming that status for herself after, in my judgment, remembering the evidence she was supposed to give. From A’s perspective, it makes no difference whether NO is her godmother or merely a close family friend. This untruth has been put forward by the mother to create a picture of A’s living arrangements being more stable than they might otherwise appear to be.

[68]Soon after A’s living arrangements changed, there were repeated breaches of the arrangements for video contact set out in the order of 27 January 2025. Two sessions were missed in February 2025, two in April and three in May. The reduced contact, in my judgment, is likely to have been the product of the mother’s unhappiness at the repeated enquiries being made by the father for a proper and truthful update about A’s living arrangements. Requests for ‘make-up calls’ were simply refused without explanation.

[69]In May 2025 the father travelled to Ghana to have contact with A. The trip required the father to make arrangements to have dialysis abroad. He was fortunate that a charity agreed to provide him with a grant so that he could afford to travel. His initial proposal was that he would travel to Ghana for a week, but the mother would not agree to him having contact over that many days, instead giving priority to extra-curricular activities that she said had been planned for A. The father arrived in Ghana on Friday 16 May, but the mother refused to agree that he could see A after school on that day. It was instead agreed that she spend the day with him on Saturday 17 May from 11am to 4pm and on Sunday 18 May from 2pm to 6pm (shorter periods than those proposed by the father).

[70]The weekend in Ghana did not proceed as planned.

[71]On 16 May 2025 the father went to visit A’s school, having made an appointment to meet the head teacher. He learned that A had been kept away from school that day. A later told him that NO had made the decision to keep her off school. This was clearly instigated by the mother, whose solicitors later said that she had missed school ‘due to concerns that the father would turn up unexpectedly and create a difficult situation for A’. There was no basis for any such concerns. In her oral evidence, NO suggested that she had kept A off school as she had a cough and was too unwell to attend. This was a lie.

[72]On 17 May 2025 the father had made known his plan to take A to a waterpark. NO, however, did not pack a swimming costume for her thus preventing the excursion from happening. The father instead took her shopping and for lunch to his home. They had a lovely day out together. The mother’s brother, R, was nominated by the maternal family to assist with the handovers and did so. NO agreed that this was a special day for A and that she returned home after contact ‘excited’.

[73]The following day, at 2pm the father went to the designated handover point to collect A. She did not arrive. He called R and the maternal grandmother but his calls were unanswered. The mother’s evidence is that the contact was cancelled as the previous day the father had made A feel uncomfortable asking inappropriate questions about her returning to England. I entirely reject her explanation. The mother’s failure to facilitate this contact is a clear example of her inability to recognise the importance of A’s relationship with her father. I find it shocking that, without even speaking to the father, she unilaterally cancelled his contact when he had gone to such lengths to visit his daughter in Ghana. A will inevitably have been deeply disappointed not to see him.

[74]NO gave an explanation for the cancellation of contact which was inconsistent with the mother’s evidence. She asserted that as a result of food given to her by the father A had an upset stomach and was too unwell to attend. I find that this explanation was also untrue. On NO’s own evidence, despite A allegedly being too unwell to go for contact, NO took her on a pre-planned outing with her son to the waterpark (although she claims that A was unable to take part in the water-based activities and sat on the side, a claim I find to be untrue). I do not know the true reason contact was prevented. I strongly suspect that the mother and NO came to the view that it was sufficient for A to have seen her father on one day and that it was inconvenient for it to take place the following day given that NO had made her own plans for a family outing.

[75]On 18 May 2025 A was once again kept off school. This absence was again instigated by the mother. In her evidence, NO claimed that A had missed school because of her allergic reaction to the food she had consumed with the father two days previously. This was another lie. Her suggestion that A had an allergic reaction so severe that she could neither have contact with her father nor go to school but was nevertheless well enough to go on an outing to a waterpark was absurd.

[76]On 2 June 2025, the mother issued an application for A and the father to undergo a DNA test to establish his paternity. She has never properly explained the basis for her late assertion that he might not be A’s father apart from claiming to have had a ‘one night stand’ with an unidentified man in April 2016. In my judgment, she never had a proper reason for making the application and did so out of spite.

[77]At a hearing on 5 June 2025 (listed to determine the parties’ cross applications), the mother dropped a bombshell into the proceedings. She announced for the first time that she wanted A to remain in Ghana for the foreseeable future contrary to the undertaking she had previously given to return her by 1 September 2026. She also asserted that, contrary to my previous determination (which had not been appealed), the court did not have jurisdiction in respect of A.

[78]On 19 June 2025 the mother filed a statement in which she provided details of her change of position. She asserted that upon completing her nursing course it was her intention to move to live in Ghana for two to three years before returning to England with A. She gave the following explanations for her change of position:(a) Her mother’s decline in health;

(b) Her partner SO had ‘decided to move to Ghana’;

(d) If A returned to England, the mother would have to work long hours and arrange childcare. The father was either unwilling or unable to provide financial and practical support. In Ghana she has the benefit of her friend and members of her family to support her.

[79]In August 2025, A once again came to England. The father collected her from the airport in Ghana on 1 August 2025 and flew with her to Heathrow via Istanbul. The flight was a positive experience for A as it allowed her to spend an extended period with her father. There was a handover to the mother at Heathrow which happened smoothly. On 4 August 2025 A was able to enjoy spending the day with the father. It was unfortunate that A saw on the father’s phone a photograph of the mother kissing another man which inevitably caused her to ask questions. I accept the father’s evidence that the photograph was in his deleted items folder, but it causes me concern that he has retained an image of this nature at all. A enjoyed another full day of contact on 6 August 2025.

[80]On 8 August 2025 the father was supposed to have contact for the day. The mother’s childminder cancelled a booking unexpectedly and so she asked the father to have A for two nights which he was happy to do. He had recently tested positive for cannabis and so it was stipulated that his sister should stay with him. The contact was successful. It allowed A the opportunity to spend time with her aunt and her cousin Z.

[81]The father then had contact with A for the day on 12 August and overnight on 13 August 2025. The parties communicated with each other by text to make the arrangements (although the messages they exchanged were tetchy). These too were successful periods of contact.

[82]A was supposed to stay with her father on 15 August 2025, but the mother cancelled this at short notice and said that he could not see her until after her planned trip to the USA from 17 to 26 August 2025. During that trip, the mother failed to facilitate the video contact which was supposed to take place (I do not accept that a lack of phone data is an adequate excuse as she will have had access to Wifi). A next stayed with her father for two nights between 27 and 29 August 2025. This was an enjoyable stay for her. As the mother had not sent A with appropriate clothing, the father took her shopping to buy her things to wear. He gave the mother the clothes he had bought at the end of the trip.

[83]A has not seen either of her father face-to-face since the summer 2025 although she has continued to have video calls with them. These have been taking place twice a week with the father. She last saw her mother over Christmas 2025 and speaks on average twice a week with the mother (according to NO). The mother told me that these calls usually take place at the weekend and that they hardly ever speak during the week (I suspect that the mother’s pattern of work and A’s school hours mean that they rarely coincide).

[84]Towards the end of 2025 the father’s sister and niece travelled to Ghana and sought to make arrangements to see A. Although they were in Ghana for three weeks, the mother only permitted them to spend time with A for a few hours on the last day of their visit.

[85]Although A previously lived with her maternal grandmother, she told the Guardian towards the end of 2025 that she had not spent any time with her recently. In my judgment, the mother has not been open about the reasons for this. It was suggested to her by Ms Guha KC in cross-examination that she and the grandmother had fallen out as a result of an argument, a question to which the mother was reluctant to provide a direct answer. Whatever the reason for A’s lack of contact with her grandmother may be, I consider this to be another example of the mother’s lack of insight into her daughter’s needs. The maternal grandmother was A’s primary carer for three and a half years and leaving her care is bound to have been an emotionally difficult experience for her, especially knowing that her grandmother was seriously ill.

The father’s recent cannabis use

[86]In early August 2025 the father underwent a hair test for cannabis use. Three one centimetre segments of hair clusters were tested, each representing a period of approximately one month between mid-April and mid-July 2025 assuming average hair growth (there is no evidence as to the father’s actual rate of hair growth). Each segment tested produced a positive result, with a ‘medium’ level of THC being detected. The testing report makes clear that this does not necessarily equate to a medium level of drug use in the period in question.

[87]In October 2025 the father had a further hair test for cannabis based on a sample collected on 19 October 2025. The sample was cut into three 1 cm strands each of which contained a very small amount of cannabinol (between 0.08 and 0.12 mg, decreasing month on month); the test results were negative for other markers of cannabis use. The results were inconclusive, but consistent with the father’s previous declared cannabis use in June 2025 and consumption of cannabis juice in July 2025 (on the basis that the small traces could be accounted for by a portion of the hair tested being in the resting phase). On the balance of probabilities, on the basis of this test and the father’s evidence which on this issue I accept, I am satisfied that he did not use cannabis during the period in August 2025 when he was caring for A.

[88]The father’s most recent hair test was produced in January 2026 and covers the approximate period from early October 2025 to early January 2026. Each of the three 1 cm segments tested produced positive results in the medium range indicative of cannabis use in the period in question. The father declared to the testing laboratory that he had not used cannabis at all in the period in question, but now accepts that this was a false declaration. He maintains that the positive test result is explained by his use of the drug on a single occasion at a party in December 2025. I am unable to accept this. The medium level of detection across three separate segments suggests more frequent use. In an earlier report dated 11 January 2024 the father similarly sought to explain away a positive test result by claiming use on a solitary occasion, a claim which the testing laboratory considered to be inconsistent with the test results. I think it is likely that after producing a negative test in October the father started using cannabis again. On 19 December 2025 he was ordered to undergo a further test; by that date his hair was already contaminated with the markers of his use.

The mother’s plans and intentions

[89]For several years the mother has been studying a nursing course with the object of obtaining a ‘pin’ that would allow her to work at Band 5 within the NHS (the starting level for qualified nurses) with the potential for career progression up to Band 9. In order to fund her studies she has obtained student loans in the total sum of £63,000. The mother completed her three year course in the Autumn of 2025. She undertook exams for 13 modules and passed 12 of them. The thirteenth is a management module where she missed the pass mark by 1%. The paper is being re-marked and she should know the revised result in the near future. If she passes, she will have achieved her nursing qualification and can start working at Band 5. If she does not pass, she will have to re-sit this one module and pass it within 2 years; otherwise the remainder of her results will become invalidated and she will have to retake all of the modules. It is possible to re-sit a paper every March and September. There is clearly a very strong incentive for the mother to do so, given how close she is to achieving the qualification she has invested so much time and money pursuing. Her evidence, which I accept on this point, is that it is possible to undertake the resit online.

[90]The mother has also been working as a ‘bank nurse’ (i.e. one paid by the shift as opposed to on a full-time contract) at the same time as studying. She works on average 5 shifts a week, each shift being 11 ½ hours long. On average, therefore, she works for 57 ½ hours a week. At her current Band 4 the rates of pay for bank nurses, according to the mother, are the same as those paid at Band 3, that is between £13 per hour and £23 per hour (the highest rate is paid for weekend shifts; night shifts pay more than day shifts). According to the mother’s evidence, the rates of pay would increase by £2 per hour if she were able to work at Band 5 (publicly available information suggests that the rates may in fact by slightly higher than this).

[91]The mother’s preference is to work night shifts, not only because of the enhanced pay. Her evidence was that she has had difficulty sleeping for most of her life which makes it hard to obtain a permanent job as she is tired during the day. She normally chooses to work at weekends.

[92]In 2024/25 the mother earned £28,000 net of tax, NI and student loan repayments working as a nurse; the previous year she earned £39,000 net of the above. On average, she earns approximately £1,300 per week gross which she said equates to £950-£990 per week net of tax, NI and approximately £100 per month student loan repayments; assuming she works 46 weeks a year, this equates to approximately £45,000 per annum or £3,750 per month net. She also earns money (£400-£500 pm) from a side business which involves exporting products to Ghana. If A were living with her she would be entitled to approximately £104 per month in child benefit (plus, perhaps, universal credit). Excluding these benefits, her earning capacity in England is equal to roughly £4,250 per month or £51,000 per annum (this would increase by about 10% if she achieved her Band 5 Pin). She has to pay rent of £1,120 per month (£13,440 per annum). After deducting rent, on the basis of her current Band, she would be left with approximately £37,500 per annum plus benefits. If A was living with her in England she would incur some childcare costs, the amount of which would depend upon how many nights a week he was with her. The mother could mitigate the childcare costs by working day shifts rather than nights, but then her earnings would be significantly less.

[93]The mother does not have a job in Ghana. Her plan, she says, is to obtain work as a nurse in an international (probably US) hospital, which would require her to undertake some retraining. She used to work at such a hospital and has a friend who currently does so earning approximately USD 3,000 per month (I assume net of tax) which equates to approximately £2,200 per month or £26,400 per annum; this would be supplemented by earnings from her side business giving her an earning capacity of roughly £32,000 per annum or approximately £2,700 per month. She would have to make student loan repayments but in a significantly smaller amount than currently. She would not have rent to pay if living with NO, although I assume that she would make some contribution for her keep (she does currently send NO money from time to time to cover expenses). She would also avoid having to pay any childcare costs. In order to achieve these earnings the mother would work a mixture of day and nights shifts (either 7am to 7pm or 7pm to 7am) on a fortnightly rotating pattern involving four shifts in one week and three in the second.

[94]I have set out these figures in detail because they demonstrate that purely from a financial perspective the mother is correct to say that, for the time being at least, it makes sense for her to live and work in Ghana. Her earnings will be lower but the savings she makes on rent and childcare will probably leave her marginally better off overall working fewer hours.

[95]The mother’s stated wish to live in Ghana also makes sense from a personal perspective in that she will be closer to her immediate family and have the benefit of a support network which includes her close friend NO and her partner SA.

[96]The father does not accept that the mother genuinely intends to relocate to Ghana. He makes the point that after taking out student loans of £63,000 and being on the cusp of achieving the qualification for which she has studied so hard and for so long, it makes no sense that at that juncture she would simply jettison the career path on which she has been travelling. This is a forceful point on which I have reflected with great care. In the end, and notwithstanding the great caution with which I treat the mother’s evidence, I have reached the conclusion on a balance of probabilities that the mother is genuine in her plan to relocate. I do not consider that she would put forward an entirely bogus plan as it would be obvious to her that any such falsehood would soon be discovered.

[97]The mother did fairly accept that she might reconsider her plans in the event that I ordered A to be returned to England. In that event, I think it is more likely than not that the mother would remain here. Living with A is a major reason for her wish to be in Ghana and if that were not possible I do not think she would move there.

[98]Although I accept that the mother does plan to move to Ghana this Spring, I have real doubts about her stated intention to remain living there for at least five years. She has not lived and worked in Ghana for nine years. She is clearly ambitious and has worked hard to pursue a nursing career in England, which carries the potential for her to continue rising through ranks and achieve other potential benefits were she to become a full-time salaried employee rather than a bank nurse. The presence of A in Ghana when she was a young child did not act as a strong enough magnet to deter her from living in London. I consider there to be a substantial risk that before five years have elapsed – perhaps within a couple of years - the mother will tire of working in Ghana and decide to return to London, leaving A in the care of NO as is the case currently.

The Guardian’s evidence

[99]A’s current Guardian is Ms Catherine Callaghan who took over the role from Mr Lill in early 2025. Ms Callaghan has prepared two reports, the most recent of which is dated 10 December 2025.

[100]Ms Callaghan has been able to meet A both in person and remotely. She was able to speak to and observe A in the company of her father during a period of contact in August 2025. Ms Callaghan’s observation was that A appeared somewhat reluctant to speak to her. She observed A to be ‘quite at ease’ with her father and ‘being affectionate’ towards him.

[101]A few days later Ms Callaghan visited A at her mother’s home. When she arrived, the mother was not at home, but she appeared 5 minutes later. A was at home and confirmed to Ms Callaghan that she had been instructed not to open the door while her mother left the flat briefly. A was again uncommunicative, responding to most questions by saying ‘I don’t know’ and declining to express a view about where she should live. She said that she was looking forward to returning to Ghana to see her friends and smiled and said ‘oh yeah’ when asked about spending time with her parents in London. When asked how she would feel if her mother moved to live with her in Ghana, A looked puzzled and replied ‘she comes every December’. The mother later confirmed that she had not discussed with A her proposed move.

[102]More recently, Ms Callaghan contacted the mother on 20 November 2025 to arrange to have a video call with A. The mother responded with an abrupt message expressing her concern that A was going to be subjected to further questioning; she said she would need to speak to A before agreeing. Ms Callaghan chased the mother for a response on 1 December 2025 but did not hear from her until after working hours on 4 December when the mother sent her a message to say that she could speak to A at 8 am the following morning. I find that this message was sent by the mother deliberately late in the expectation that Ms Callaghan would not receive it until it was too late for her to have the call with A.

[103]In fact, Ms Callaghan did receive the message and was able to make the video call at the time the mother had specified. It is clear from Ms Callaghan’s evidence that A was not alone during the call; she saw somebody sitting in the corner of the room and observed A turning around to look at this person. When asked, however, A denied that anybody else was present. A came across as distracted and impatient during the call, giving only brief answers to the questions she was asked. Initially, she did not respond when asked whether there was anything she would like to tell the judge on the subject of where she was to live; Ms Callaghan observed her eyes ‘darting around the room’ when asked this question. When asked directly what she would think if it was decided that she should live in England she responded ‘I don’t know…no’ explaining ‘because I have school in Ghana’. It was apparent that she remained unaware of her mother’s plan to live with her in Ghana, again relating that her mother ‘comes to see me every December’.

[104]With a degree of understatement, the Guardian expressed the view in her most recent report that although both parents have an understanding of A’s ‘basic needs in respect of her physical care, health and education’ they need to ensure that she is not exposed to the tension between them or their arguments. In the Guardian’s opinion, which I share, A has some awareness of the parental conflict and has suffered emotionally from the uncertainty surrounding the future arrangements for her care.

[105]In the same report, the Guardian noted that while the father had not been open about his previous cannabis use, recent testing indicated that he had ceased taking the drug and he had expressed a commitment to refrain from future use if A was placed in his care.

[106]Ms Callaghan expressed concern about the mother’s willingness and ability to promote A’s relationship with her father and wider paternal family. Her assessment, with which I concur, is that without the intervention of the court A would not have been able to develop a relationship with her father. She noted that even while the proceedings have been ongoing, there have been difficulties with both direct and video contact (as I have related above). Her view is that were A to live with the mother in Ghana, without a mirror order there is a risk that the mother would not facilitate any contact ordered by this court. She described the father’s commitment to promoting A’s relationship with her mother as ‘untested’ but noted that orders for contact would be more easily enforceable were A to be living with the father in this jurisdiction.

[107]Ms Callaghan’s view is that the outcome of the proceedings will have a ‘major impact’ on A’s life. Her most recent report rightly highlights the risks in each of the proposals put forward by the parents. For example, in Ghana little is known about A’s present home environment or the adults with whom she is living or coming into contact; her mother has a track record of failing to promote contact and Ms Callaghan lacks confidence that she will do so in future. On the other hand, a move to England would entail ‘a massive change’ for A in order to live with a father who has never previously been her sole carer and with whom she has had only limited contact since the parties’ separation in 2019.

[108]When she prepared her report on 10 December 2025, Mr Callaghan’s ultimate and finely balanced recommendation was that A should live with her father in England. Were the mother to reconsider her plan and remain in England, there should be a transitional period where A stayed with her father while the mother obtained more secure employment, following which her care should be shared between the parents.

[109]By the time of the hearing before me, Ms Callaghan had changed her position as a result of the father’s recent positive drugs test. Whilst the case remained finely balanced, she considered that this development tipped the balance the other way. Apart from the concerns inherent in the father’s ongoing use of an illegal and harmful substance, the failed test demonstrated that he had not been open and honest with professionals including his own treating doctors.

[110]During her oral evidence, Ms Callaghan made clear that even were the mother now to remain in London she would not recommend that A be moved from Ghana in the current circumstances. Her view was that the mother would not be able to manage being A’s full-time carer while working long hours in London and would require the burden of care to be shared with the father. Given the recent evidence about his ongoing drug use, Ms Callaghan’s view (which I paraphrase) was that the risks for A of being placed in her father’s care, even on a part-time basis, were too great for her to sanction this course.

Submissions

[111]I shall summarise the parties’ key submissions concisely.

[112]Ms Guha KC and Mr Hale KC each submitted that the outcome for which each of their clients respectively contends was in A’s best interests.

[113]Ms Guha KC emphasised the real risks highlighted by the Guardian that if A lives with her mother her relationship with her father will not be promoted and that contact may even cease altogether, with long-term implications for A’s identity. She also challenged the mother’s assertion that she intends to relocate to Ghana at all and submitted that were I to accede to the mother’s proposal the reality is that A will continue to live with a non-family member while the mother lives and works in England managing her care from afar.

[114]Ms Guha KC acknowledged the father’s recent drug test but emphasised his commitment to addressing the issue, pointing out that he has recently taken initial steps to contact an organisation in South London that will be able to help him in his stated aim of cessation of use. She made the point that the father is willing to continue to undergo drug testing and mooted the possibility of delaying any return order until the summer which would allow him a period of time to demonstrate that he could fulfil his expressed commitment.

[115]In contrast, Mr Hale KC submitted that in view of the father’s ongoing cannabis use he was in no position to assume the full time care of his young daughter for the reasons alighted upon by the Guardian. He also emphasised that for whatever reason the father has had only limited involvement in A’s life to date and that moving her from Ghana would entail a huge disruption to her settled life. He further submitted that A has been consistent in making clear her wish to remain in Ghana and that this should be given significant weight. He invited me to accept the sincerity of the mother’s stated intentions as to relocation and to find that each of her supporting witnesses (NO in particular) had given reliable evidence and could be trusted to further A’s welfare in Ghana, including promoting her paternal relationship. The mother is willing to co-operate in obtaining a mirror order which, Mr Hale KC submitted, will provide additional reassurance to the father that she will comply with her obligations to facilitate A's contact with him.

[116]On behalf of the Guardian, Mr Evans helpfully set out a list of factors weighing in favour and against the parents’ respective proposals. He reiterated the Guardian’s position that this was a finely balanced case, but one where (in light of the recent drug test) the balance came down in favour of the mother’s proposals.

Analysis and conclusions

[117]As I have already made clear, I share the Guardian’s view that this is a finely balanced case. In reaching my conclusions I have taken into account all of the factors in the welfare checklist. It is unnecessary for me to set these out individually.

[118]I accept the Guardian’s evidence that A’s expressed wish is to remain in Ghana and that it is a wish which is authentically held. She is a relatively young child, however, and I do not consider she has a proper understanding about the issues involved in these proceedings which have an impact on her welfare. It is also clear to me from the Guardian’s evidence that she would be happy to be cared for by either of her parents. Ultimately, therefore, the weight I give to her wish to remain in Ghana is relatively limited.

[119]It is relevant that A is a dual national child of Ghanaian heritage. She has strong connections with Ghana including the fact that members of her family live there. It is also relevant that she has now lived in Ghana for more than half of her young life including the most recent four and a half years. Conversely, I bear in mind her parents’ previous joint decision that she should be brought up in England. A is only in Ghana because of her mother’s unilateral actions.

[120]A’s physical needs are currently being well met and will continue to be so if the mother moves to live in NO’s home. I consider that the father will probably also be able to meet A’s physical needs on a basic level, although the combination of his lack of experience, his poor health and his ongoing cannabis use means that there is a risk for A, which I consider to be more than a low risk, that in future he may not always manage to do so consistently or adequately. The prognosis for his health is uncertain, as I have set out above. Were the risk I have identified to materialise A would face the destabilising consequences of her father’s decline, his inability to care properly for her and having once again to move to live with another carer.

[121]A’s current educational needs are being met and it is to SA’s credit that he has been willing to pay for her school fees. Remaining in Ghana, however, is likely to be more challenging for A from an educational perspective in the medium and long term. As the Guardian said in evidence, it would be much easier for A to transition to a school in England while she is at primary level than it will be when, on the mother’s proposal, she moves to England when she is aged 14.

[122]On the evidence I have heard, I am not satisfied that A’s emotional needs are being met. On the contrary, in my judgment she is a child who is likely to have suffered emotional harm as a consequence of the adverse experiences she has endured at various stages of her life: witnessing her parents’ arguments as an infant; suffering the abrupt loss of her father at a young age; being abducted to and left in Ghana without either of her parents; having limited contact with her mother thereafter and a prolonged period of no contact at all with her father; being moved suddenly from school without preparation; being moved from the care of her grandmother to NO’s house and having limited contact with her grandmother thereafter. The mother describes A as a resilient child. Maybe so, but it is a resilience borne of adversity. In my judgment, the repeated losses A has suffered from a young age are likely to have long-term consequences for her. I was struck by NO’s evidence that A does not like to sleep alone preferring to share a bed with NO and J or her niece. This, in my view, is an indicator of her insecurity. In my judgment, the mother is wholly lacking in insight as to the impact which her actions have had on her daughter.

[123]As the Guardian has made clear in her written and oral evidence, going forward it is vital for A’s emotional health that she is able to enjoy a positive relationship with both of her parents. As I have set out above, the mother has a poor track record of actively promoting contact. That does, however, need to be balanced against the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that she has sought to denigrate the father to A or instil a negative image of him in her. It is clear from the evidence that A has been able to enjoy good-quality contact with the father from the time of the introductory video session arranged by Mr Lill. I do not believe that this would have occurred so smoothly if the mother had been determined to prevent it. The mother has generally ensured that the court’s orders have been complied with, although there have been missed periods of video contact which have not adequately been explained. My overall impression is that she has tended to follow the letter of what has been stipulated without enthusiasm. She has been reluctant to arrange or agree to any contact not specifically mandated by the court even if it was patently in A’s interests to do so. The most striking, but not the only, example of this is what occurred in Ghana in May 2025. The mother was prepared to allow A to stay overnight with the father sooner than planned in August 2025, but I find that this is likely to have been driven primarily by her own childcare difficulties as opposed to a recognition of the benefit A would gain from spending the time with her father.

[124]I also consider that the father has demonstrated a lack of insight in relation to A’s needs. It must have been enormously difficult for the two of them to be rendered suddenly homeless in the Autumn of 2019, a fact he has failed to acknowledge. It might have been difficult for him to move home given his condition and ongoing need for dialysis, but had he given priority to A’s needs at that time he would surely have investigated alternatives which did not require her suddenly to live itinerantly for several weeks with her mother. It does not appear that he considered the potential for him to stay with a relative for a short period or to find sufficient funds to allow the mother to live more securely in the short term at least.

[125]I was also troubled by the evidence that the father has retained on his phone images (taken I assume from social media) showing the mother in intimate positions with other men. I find his evidence as to how A came across one such image difficult to accept; even if true, what he told A about the image was wholly insensitive to impact receiving such information was likely to have on her. His own evidence is that he had kept the images in order one day to explain to A how her parents had come to be separated, a rationale so inappropriate and lacking insight that it requires no further comment from me.

[126]In addition to the harm she has already suffered, as the Guardian has made plain and I have already set out, A is at risk of suffering further harm whichever option I alight upon. I agree with the Guardian’s assessment that there are no risk-free options.

[127]A move to England would entail some disruption for A as it is clear that she has a relatively settled life in Ghana and enjoys her school where she has made friends. Relocation always involves some degree of disturbance for a child and I do not consider that this factor per se militates strongly against making an order for A to live in England with her father. Considerations relevant to her interests in the medium and long-term carry more weight than the disruption of a move.

[128]It is easy to see why the Guardian has found this case difficult. The various considerations I have summarised pull in different directions. Having weighed them up carefully, I have come to the clear conclusion that the balance of these tips decisively in favour of the mother’s proposal. Notwithstanding her unilateral actions which have limited A’s relationship with her father, I do consider on balance that she is likely to comply with any orders for contact which I make. She has generally done so to date and has an incentive to continue doing so as I believe she will one day wish to return to England to continue her career and will not want to become a fugitive from justice. Having a mirror order in Ghana, which the mother is willing to co-operate in obtaining, will act as a further safeguard. There are a number of benefits to A of living with her mother in Ghana (as I have set out above). Although the mother has been largely physically absent from A’s life, she has been actively involved in making decisions about her care and A is used to her as a constant presence in her life. It will be a positive experience for her to have her mother with her full-time. The father, through no fault of his own, has played much less of a role in her life. A is likely to find a move to live with him more challenging emotionally, even before one factors in the risks to which I have referred.

[129]I have considered carefully the father’s submission that I should order a return on the basis that this is likely to result in the mother changing her plan and remaining in England. Although I agree that this would be likely to occur, I do not think such an outcome would be in A’s best interests. On a practical level, given the mother’s working hours, it would require the father to assume a major caring role and probably even become her primary carer. For reasons I have already discussed, I find that the risks for A in such an outcome are at present too great when compared to the alternative proposal advocated by the mother. Additionally, I believe that the mother would feel deeply resentful about being forced against her will to live in London with all of the financial consequences this would entail. She has previously said that she felt A was a financial burden to her in London and she is likely to feel this again. This in turn would have an impact on her ability to provide good care for A, who would also be affected by the degree of resentment the mother would feel towards the father for having placed her in this situation.

[130]In order to mitigate the risks to A’s relationship with her father arising from continuing to live in Ghana it is essential that she should have face-to-face contact with him in each of her main school holidays: half the holidays or one week (whichever is longer) at Christmas (with the festival days alternating each year between the parents), half the holidays or one week (whichever is longer) at Easter and three weeks in the Summer. Given the constraints on each party’s finances, the default position should be that A flies as an unaccompanied minor (unless either parent, at their own expense, chooses to travel with her). KLM offer this service for children aged 5 and upwards. I consider that A is resilient enough to fly on her own. The father should meet the costs of flights at Easter and in the Summer; the mother at Christmas. This uneven split reflects the fact that the mother, despite her larger earning capacity, will have the greater burden of meeting A’s day-to-day living expenses. The order should contain provision for additional contact in Ghana in the event that the father is able to travel to that jurisdiction.

[131]The mother, supported in this by the Guardian, submits that the father’s contact should be supervised until such time as he produces a negative drug test. I have decided, on balance that such a stipulation would not be in A’s best interests. It is likely to lead to further acrimonious correspondence between the parties and may result in periods of contact not taking place if the father is unable to satisfy the mother that adequate arrangements are in place. The risks arising from the father’s use of cannabis and his poor health in the context of his contact with A are of a wholly different order from those which would arise were she to live with him. I remind myself that when A was an infant, the mother – knowing about the father’s cannabis use – would regularly leave A overnight in his care. There is no suggestion that she came to any harm. A has also enjoyed without incident all of the recent contact she has had with the father, including periods when there was no supervision. I have accepted the father’s evidence that he was able to refrain from using cannabis during the period when A has stayed with him more recently and believe that he will do so in future. As an added safeguard I will require the father to give an undertaking not to consume the drug while A is in his care. A is now of an age where she would report any usage which provides him with a significant incentive to comply.

[132]I will also make an order requiring the mother to ensure that the father is kept fully informed of important matters in relation to A’s health and welfare. In the event that in future the mother decides to return to live in England she must notify the father at least three months before the date of her return. In such circumstances, I would expect the parties to attempt to mediate the arrangements for A but if no agreement is possible either of them will be able to make a further application to the court.