THE Royal Court has launched a stinging criticism of the care provided to a vulnerable teenage girl by the government – finding that almost two years of intensive state intervention had failed to stop her repeatedly going missing, left her education “markedly lacking” and did little to address the underlying causes of her behaviour.
The rebuke came as the court refused an application made in the name of the Children’s Minister application for a final care order for the teenager, who had previously been reported missing on dozens of occasions – sometimes living on the streets for up to two weeks.
The teenager, who cannot be identified, had spent 250 days in secure accommodation and been supported by a large network of professionals, including four successive social workers and up to 16 care workers at one residential home.
But the court questioned what that extensive intervention had actually achieved, and concluded that the government’s plan to send her to the UK was a “colossal gamble” which risked being a “disaster for her”.
In a strongly worded judgment, Commissioner Sir William Bailhache – sitting with Jurats Averty and Le Cornu – said the court had taken “a long hard look” at why continuing to give the minister parental responsibility would improve the teenager’s situation, concluding: “History suggests it will not.”
The teenager, who cannot be identified, had lived with a relative until her early teens, before moving in with another family member, but her behaviour became increasingly difficult to manage.
By spring 2024, when an interim care order was granted, she had been reported missing on around 87 occasions and had sometimes lived on the streets for as long as 14 days.
During those periods, she was exposed to risks including sexual exploitation, alcohol and drugs. The court also recorded that she had self-harmed, expressed suicidal feelings, and “not infrequently” been found with a razor blade.
She was subsequently placed in the minister’s care, but continued to abscond whenever she was not in secure accommodation.
The Royal Court noted that since care proceedings began, the teenager had had four social workers, lived with foster carers and in three different government-run homes, and been subject to repeated orders restricting her freedom.
Her education had been “markedly lacking”, effective CAMHS treatment had only begun last summer and little progress had been made towards reunification with the family member with whom she wanted to live, the judgement continued.
The court also highlighted how a job application made by the teenager was derailed because her medical records were not forwarded by those in charge of caring for her, while the part-time job she eventually secured was arranged through her family rather than the minister.
The judgment also questioned whether the large volume of professionals involved in her life – a social worker, up to 16 care workers at her home, a family support worker, personal adviser, peer mentor, advocate and CAMHS professionals – was necessarily providing the teenager with what she needed.
“One might think that what is really missing is one person who is always available to her and who has established a relationship with her,” the court said, “That at least would replicate the parental relationships under which children prosper, rather than a succession of people who mean very well and do their absolute best but because of the circumstances never get really close.”
The key point of disagreement, however, was the minister’s plan to place the teenager in the UK over concerns that there are “no placements in Jersey that can currently meet her needs in the long-term”.
The teenager, who the court described as “obviously intelligent”, was said to be “clear” that she wanted to remain in Jersey and ultimately return to her family member’s care.
Her guardian – an independent professional appointed by the court to represent the child’s best interests during the legal proceedings – was also against the plan. She warned that sending her away from the Island “would disrupt, possibly terminally, the work CAMHS was doing with [the teenager and her family]”.
The guardian explained that the child felt “more criticised than supported by Children’s Service staff” and was troubled by the government’s admission that they could not keep the child safe outside a secure setting.
The Royal Court was similarly emphatic that moving the child to the UK would damage her relationships, trust, treatment effectiveness and the “tentative start” she had made in resuming her studies and working towards exams, adding: “In short, in our view, it would be a disaster for her.”
The judges said there would be a “very high risk” that she would abscond from a UK placement, with an increased risk of self-harm “or even worse”.
“We disagree with the assessment made by some in the Children’s Service that it might be the making of her and it would be the best option,” they added. “It seems to us more likely that an off-island placement would be a colossal gamble.”
The strongest criticism came towards the end of the judgment as the court considered what would happen if it refused to grant the care order.
The teenager’s social worker had accepted that virtually all of the support currently available to her could continue without one, with the principal difference being that the minister would no longer have parental responsibility.
But the minister’s lawyer, Advocate Jeremy Kerley of the Law Officers’ Department, subsequently raised the possibility that, without a care order, the statutory test requiring the government to provide her with accommodation might not be met because another family member was capable of looking after her.
“It is no understatement to say that the members of the Court were astonished by the submissions Advocate Kerley was instructed to make,” the judgment said.
The court rejected the argument, stressing that the law exists to ensure a vulnerable 16- or 17-year-old does not end up on the streets.
“The 2002 Law is there for the protection of children, and it is more than surprising to find that the Minister for Children considers that he can avoid his obligations at will.”
It described the suggestion that the minister might not have to accommodate the teenager if her family was unwilling to take her back immediately as “devoid of any merit”.
The court acknowledged that there were “no easy answers” to the ongoing situation and accepted that those working directly with the teenager faced an exceptionally difficult task.
“If any criticism leads those involved to suggest that it is all too easy to stand on the touchline when not actually in the firing line, we not only understand that but accept it,” the Royal Court said.
Nonetheless, they concluded that granting the minister further parental responsibility had not been shown to be better for the teenager than making no order at all.
The application for a final care order was therefore refused.
