A legal dispute has emerged in the United Kingdom as a 13-year-old boy files a lawsuit against his parents, alleging emotional and physical abandonment following their decision to enrol him in a boarding school in Elburgon, Kenya.
The boy, whose identity remains confidential, contends that he was coerced into the move despite his objections and has since reached out to the British Consulate and a child welfare organization for assistance after his parents returned to the UK without him. The case, being presented in court by barrister Deirdre Fottrell KC, centres around accusations that the parents acted unjustly, motivated by unfounded fears regarding their son’s alleged gang involvement in London.
The boy asserts that these claims are baseless and that the enforced move has resulted in significant emotional and psychological distress. In a recent court hearing, Fottrell highlighted several shortcomings related to the boarding school’s conditions, including inadequate food, poor treatment, and substandard educational practices. She argues that the parents had deceived their son into travelling to Kenya under the guise of visiting a sick relative, making the critical decision without his consent.
Fottrell remarks, “The steps this boy has taken to remedy the awful situation he finds himself in are extraordinary,” pointing to the humiliation and ridicule he faces from peers in the UK, who have likened his relocation to “deportation.”
On the other hand, the boy’s parents, represented by Rebecca Foulkes, defend their actions as a necessary exercise of parental responsibility. They cite concerns over their son’s behaviour in the UK, including late-night outings, expensive clothing, and possession of images involving knives, which troubled social workers and raised safety alarms. The parents argue that St. Andrew’s Turi in Kenya provides a structured and safe environment, far removed from the perceived dangers in London.
Presiding over the proceedings, Mr Justice Hayden acknowledged the complexities of the case, weighing the parents’ rights against the child’s welfare. He noted that previous restrictions placed on the boy in the UK, such as limitations on phone use, may have contributed to his dissatisfaction with the relocation. The UK government is covering the boy’s legal fees through legal aid.
