British teenager becomes a ward of court to escape from Somalia  

We spotted this dramatic court judgment published last week although, surprisingly, we’ve not seen any media coverage – Re M (Nationality Based Jurisdiction) [2025] EWHC 1821 (Fam).

There are a few similarities with the widely publicised case in July of the 14 year old boy whose parents left him in Ghana against his will, Re S (Wardship; Renoval to Ghana) [2025] EWCA CIv 1011 which we wrote about here. However in Re S, the boy was suffering distress at being in an unfamiliar environment.

In this new, much more extreme, case, the boy ‘M’, now 16, had been taken with his siblings from the UK to live in Somalia by his mother six years ago. M was born in the UK and is a UK citizen; he went to a local primary school in the UK. In Somalia, he became fearful for his life because his mother is part of a strong religious group and he had started to question those beliefs.

The background is briefly explained by Mr Justice MacDonald on 10 July as follows:

M asserts that he is being held in Somalia against his will through the actions of his mother. He further asserts that his welfare and fundamental rights are now at serious risk as the result of his declared apostacy with respect to his former Islamic faith. M asserts that this has led to threats posted online and by his mother and maternal family, including threats to kill, and threats to send him to a re-education facility at which he will be at risk of serious abuse.

‘Apostasy’ means abandonment or renunciation of a religion.

The judgment contains harrowing details of abuse of children who grew up outside Somalia who are being ‘re-educated’ (including one of M’s brothers) and the explicit death threats that were made against M.

The parents were not notified of M’s application or the court decision

M’s situation raised so many risks and potential human rights violations that the High Court made him a ward of court on 7 July and made a without-notice summary return order, without his parents being served with any notice of this. A ‘without notice’ (used to be called ‘ex parte’) application in emergency children proceedings where parents are not given notice is rare, but obviously it can be necessary in exceptional circumstances. There were complications here because a return order is usually made against a parent, but in this case, the order wasn’t directed at any individual or organization.

M had told his solicitor that if his parents were to be informed that he was applying to the UK Government or to court, his application should just be ‘scrapped’.

The judge emphasised that now the parents are fully informed, they can present their side of the story and apply for the return order to be set aside.

How did M travel to the UK?

According to the judgment, M was making connections with sympathisers online, one of whom approached the legal firm in the UK which had acted for the boy in Re S.  A solicitor, James Netto, managed to speak to M and then approached the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to check whether they recognised that British citizens could be at risk in Mogadishu. The FCDO said they were aware that British children in Somalia could face significant challenges, including arbitrary detention. They would be able to provide M with travel documents, despite his mother hiding his passport, if he needed to return to the UK. The return order was made on 7 July and M was able to get to a British Embassy office in a secure zone to collect the papers on 15 July. His plane ticket was paid for by his solicitor.

There is a long discussion in Mr Justice MacDonald’s judgment about the legal basis for the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction based on the nationality of the protected person, rather than his location. Unsurprisingly, this is quite complicated, and the judge emphasised the strength of the evidence about the risks that British children face in Somalia. As with the issue of giving notice, the parents have Article 8 rights of family life but these were outweighed by the potential breaches of M’s Article 2 and 3 rights not be killed or tortured.

Outcome

The judgment, given on 10 July, concludes:

63. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in this case to continue the wardship and make a declaration that M is, as a British citizen, in need of protection of the High Court by reason of circumstances sufficiently compelling to render it necessary for the court to exercise its protective jurisdiction based on his nationality. Further, I am satisfied that the protective order that requires to be made is the continuation of the order requiring the return of M to the jurisdiction of England and Wales, subject to a variation to ensure that the order is directed against his parents. Finally, I am satisfied that these proceedings should continue without notice to the respondent parents and that, in consequence and exceptionally, the return order should not be served on them until such time as M has returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

However, a postscript is added:

POSTSCRIPT 64. On 15 July 2025, M managed to reach the British Embassy Office in the secure zone in Mogadishu to collect his emergency travel documents. On 16 July 2025, he travelled to Mogadishu airport and boarded a plane using a ticket purchased through Mr Netto [M’s solicitor and ‘litigation friend’]. M arrived in the UK, via Istanbul, on the same day and was met by a social worker who escorted him to local authority accommodation. The court has now made orders requiring service of the proceedings, and of the return order, on M’s parents.

M’s father lives in the UK but he supported M’s mother’s actions and appears to also hold extreme religious views. It was envisaged in an earlier judgment on 8 July that if M did get to the UK in accordance with the return order, then the local authority where he arrived would take on responsibility for M as a looked-after child under s 20 Children Act 1989. (Children aged 16 and 17 don’t require their parents’ consent to be accommodated by a local authority under s 20.) We assume this is his current status.

Image: An airplane about to fly – Creative Commons licence on Pexels. Thanks to photographer Yahye Somali.

We have a small favour to ask!

TEN YEARS A CHARITY

The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it. 

We can’t do what we do without help from you! 

We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page