13-YEAR-OLD BOY DEPORTED TO AFRICA SUES UK BASED PARENTS. (PHOTO).

 13-year-old Boy Deported To Africa Sues UK Based Parents

The boy’s legal team argued that his parents “physically and emotionally abandoned” him due to concerns over his potential involvement in gangs in London, an accusation the teenager vehemently denied.

A 13-year-old boy has taken legal action against his parents, accusing them of “brutally” taking him overseas and enrolling him in a boarding school before abandoning him there.

The boy, whose identity is protected, contacted the British Consulate and a child welfare organization after his parents registered him at an African school before returning to the United Kingdom.

The boy’s legal team argued that his parents “physically and emotionally abandoned” him due to concerns over his potential involvement in gangs in London, an accusation the teenager vehemently denied.

At a hearing that began on Tuesday, the boy’s lawyers requested a judge ordered his return to the UK, where he has lived since birth.

However, the boy’s father’s lawyers argued that the decision to send him abroad was a legitimate exercise of parental responsibility.

Deirdre Fottrell KC, representing the boy, stated that his parents’ actions were driven by the belief that there was no alternative way to address the perceived risks than by removing him from the country.

She added, “The steps that this boy, not yet 14, has taken to try and remedy the awful situation he finds himself in, are extreme.

“There is clear evidence that he is being harmed emotionally, psychologically, and possibly physically in the environment in which he has been placed,” describing the parents’ decision to leave him in such a situation as “extraordinary.”

She emphasized that the boy’s claim of not being involved in any gang was “categorical,” and the risks his parents feared, such as being stabbed or shot were not a likely outcome should he return home.

The boy was described in court as “very polite and articulate,” with a passion for football and cooking.

According to Fottrell, he was enrolled in a school abroad without warning or consultation with him, under the pretense of caring for an ill relative. Upon arrival, his parents left him there.

Fottrell described the act as “stark and quite brutal,” citing the boy’s reports of “inadequate” food and tuition, as well as mistreatment. She also highlighted that the boy was “patently extremely unhappy” in Africa, finding the experience “humiliating” and stating that his English friends mocked him for being “deported.”

In addition, Fottrell mentioned that the boy’s mother admitted to physically chastising and abusing him while in the UK. The boy is reportedly “upset, confused, and distressed despite acknowledging his imperfections.”

The Judge in charge of the case, Mr. Justice Hayden, during the hearing, pointed out that the boy was subjected to “incredibly restrictive” measures in the UK, such as having his location monitored through his phone, which he suggested would be “pretty unbearable for most 14-year-old boys and girls.”

Rebecca Foulkes, representing the boy’s father, mentioned that social workers had reported issues in managing the boy’s behaviour before he left the UK.

They noted instances of physical aggression from the mother when trying to manage his behaviour.

Foulkes also shared that the boy had frequently been late to class, stayed out late, and had been suspected of engaging in criminal activities.

The school had concerns about his social vulnerability and had observed him with expensive clothes and phones, while his phone contained pictures of knives and friends holding knives.

Foulkes stated that from the father’s perspective, there had been a clear deterioration in the boy’s behaviour, leaning toward criminal activities.

She argued that the boy’s parents had “real concerns about where he was and who he was with.”

Foulkes further stated that, in her view, “high-quality care and education in a boundary setting” was available in Africa, where the risks the boy faced in the UK were not present. She believed that the boy’s potential would be wasted if he were to return to the UK.

The court also heard that the parents’ decision should be respected, as it was made in their son’s best interest, even if it did not align with his wishes.

The hearing before Mr. Justice Hayden is set to continue at a later date.