In the matter of GG (Care Order) (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Wright : Care Order) [2026] JRC 018 (15 January 2026)

judgment the COMMISSIONER: 1. GG was born in 2010, he is 15. His parents are D aged 46 years and E aged 42 years. GG is part of a sibling group some of whom he has grown up with whilst living with his mother D. E has had no involvement with GG for some time and has not participated in proceedings concerning his son.

2. GG and his siblings were born and brought up in Jersey. Children's Services have been involved with the family for many years; GG was subject to Child in Need plans from approximately 2019 when he was about 8 years old. By 2023 when GG was 12 he became involved in criminality by way of shoplifting with older relatives and there were concerns he was being exploited and was unsafe as he was starting to go missing from home. In 2024 GG was found sleeping rough and had to be taken to hospital; there were concerns he and his siblings were being neglected, and although support was offered to D from Children's Services this was often refused. Proceedings 3. The Minister for Children and Families ("the Minister") initially issued an application for a Care Order in July 2024, although this was subsequently withdrawn. Eventually GG was made the subject of an Interim Care Order (ICO) and a Secure Accommodation Order (SAO) on 10 September 2025 due to him being beyond parental control by being involved in criminality and at significant risk of harm in the community. The ICO has continued since that date. GG was released from Secure Accommodation in October 2025 and moved to residential care in Jersey.

4. After GG moved to residential care his behaviour deteriorated further; he went missing frequently, was dysregulated and aggressive, refused to take prescribed medication, had poor sleep routine, and became involved in further criminality which escalated to car theft and criminal damage. GG was charged in relation to various criminal offences and appeared before the Youth Court in December 2025 and January 2026.

5. Dr Williams, clinical psychologist, prepared an assessment of GG albeit he refused to engage. Dr Williams concluded that GG presented with - "Severe emotional immaturity and poor regulation. GG's social behaviour was marked by a reliance on antisocial groups, indicating a severe deficit in forming safe, prosocial attachments. Behaviourally GG was characterised by chronic and escalating delinquency, high-risk behaviour, violence, culminating in an acute risk profile which was uncontained in the community." Dr Williams recommended the following: "Long-term, sustained support within a therapeutic residential setting to stabilise GGs behaviour and address his underlying deficits. The prognosis for a full recovery from underlying neurodevelopmental conditions (both ADHD and cognitive deficits) was poor as these are permanent. However, there was a reasonable prospect of mitigating the risk and supporting GGs necessary improvement provided there was a consistent long-term secure or intensive therapeutic placement." 6. The Minister sourced an appropriate therapeutic placement in line with Dr William's recommendations at Accommodation F just outside Place H. GG met with staff from the unit whilst he was in Jersey in early December and subsequently agreed to visit the placement between 18 to 20 December 2025. GG then went to the placement on 6 January 2026 having appeared at the Youth Court in Jersey, and it is understood he has settled reasonably well.

7. The matter was listed for final hearing on 14 January 2026 to determine the following: (i) The application by the Minister for a final Care Order; (ii) The application by the Minister for permission to place GG off the island of Jersey in a therapeutic placement. Final Hearing 8. The Final hearing in these proceedings commenced on 14 January 2026 before me, Commissioner Wright and Jurats Entwistle and Berry. It is accepted that the parties had fairly short notice of this final hearing albeit most of the information relating to GG's proposed placement was available at an earlier directions hearing on 4 December 2025. The Court determined it was necessary and appropriate to resolve the proceedings speedily given the level of GG's needs and that the Minister had been able to locate and secure a proposed long-term placement for GG to which it appeared GG had consented.

9. At the final hearing all parties were represented other than E who has played no part in these proceedings. We were grateful to Mr Hillier, Advocate for D, who confirmed there was no challenge to the final Threshold document dated 14 January 2026 at A65-66 of the bundle. Accordingly, the Court found threshold was met which can be summarised as follows: (i) GG was, at the relevant dates in both 2024-2025 beyond parental control and suffered significant harm: (a) GG was frequently out in the community during the night and early hours of the morning, involved in antisocial behaviour, criminality, and was vulnerable to exploitation. This escalated to GG being involved in car theft, other criminality, and being convicted of criminal offences. (b) GG was reported to carry a knife in the community for his own protection, which was confirmed by police. GG was rarely attending education and was coming to the attention of police on a very regular basis. (c) GG has a diagnosis of ADHD, he is vulnerable, easily influenced, and was associating with other young people also at risk of exploitation and involved in the use of illicit substances. GG was also vulnerable to sexual exploitation by older men. (d) GG continued to be involved in antisocial behaviour, including repeated incidents of violence, theft, non-compliance with conditions imposed by the Youth Court, testing boundaries, going missing, and failing to engage in education.

10. We heard evidence from GG's social worker B who was asked questions on behalf of D and GG through his Guardian Ginny Davies. D has not filed any evidence in the proceedings and did not wish to give live evidence. Ms Davies was not required to give live evidence and has filed her final report dated 5 January 2026. We are grateful to all advocates for focusing on the issues to be resolved, and we heard brief submissions particularly on behalf of D. We indicated we would give a short written judgement on 15 January 2026.

11. We have read the full bundle on caselines which includes all evidence filed by the Minister, the expert assessments, significant information about the proposed placement of GG and the positions of each of the parties. Positions of the Parties 12. The Minister seeks a final Care Order and permission pursuant to Schedule 2, para 4 (1) (a) Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the 2002 Law") to arrange for GG to live outside the jurisdiction at the specified placement at Accommodation F, Place H. The Care Plan is dated 15 December 2025. GG has already travelled to the proposed placement and has settled reasonably well. It was accepted on behalf of the Minister that the Care Plan can be amended to provide for GG to remain in this placement if this continues to be suitable for his needs beyond the proposed initial period of 6-9 months. B accepted that the Care Plan could be amended to reflect this, and that there was no relevant budgetary issue. GG will have frequent and flexible telephone contact with D as he does now, and he will also have visits by D and his siblings at least monthly with the Minister funding flights and accommodation for D to travel to Place H. GG will be enrolled in local education and will start on a reduced timetable as soon as possible as he has missed so much schooling already. GG will also be subject to CAMHS support, who will manage his ADHD medication as appropriate, and will assess for suspected autism as recommended by Dr Williams. The Minister accepts that there should be some specific work undertaken to support D's relationship with GG which would likely be provided locally in Jersey if D is willing to undertake this.

13. D does not contest threshold as summarised above and accepts the inevitability of a Care Order given there is no realistic prospect of GG returning to her care, at least at the present time. D is very concerned about GG's welfare, and has expressed concern as to the circumstances of GG's transition to the placement in Place H. It is understood that GG was given a choice when he appeared at the Youth Court - either he could agree to go to the placement or there was the possibility of him being remanded in custody back to Accommodation E in Jersey. Understandably, faced with this choice and given his vulnerabilities GG agreed to travel to the placement in Place H. D is concerned that this was not a realistic choice for GG, and that his consent to being placed in Place H is not based on any proper and appropriate basis. D does not believe that the placement in Place H is appropriate for GG, she is concerned that GG is a Jersey child, and that the Minister should have made arrangements for GG to be looked after safely and appropriately in Jersey. D is also concerned that GG may start absconding as he did in Jersey, that the placement is not secure, that GG's behaviour may well deteriorate, and that GG does not wish to remain at the placement as that is what he has told D over the phone. D would like GG to return to her care eventually and strongly believes he should not be placed outside Jersey.

14. The Guardian's report is dated 5 January 2026. The Guardian supports the applications by the Minister and subject to the amendment of the Care Plan as set out above, she also supports GG's placement in Place H for so long as it is in GG's welfare interests. It is appropriate to note the following from Ms Davies report: "a. GG's safety and well-being can best be promoted by having his negative peer relationships in Jersey disrupted, by being able to establish positive adult relationships and by finding a sense of purpose. Whilst these aims are fairly basic, he will not be able to achieve this whilst living in Jersey because there are not the resources which can offer him this. The home in [Place H] is in a rural area so GG will not be able to abscond with other young people who have a negative influence over him. GG's profile fits with that of other young people they have worked with, he will be offered a tailored education and vocational plan, therapeutic support as well as a wide range of extracurricular activities. b. Neither the option of GG remaining living in a children's home in Jersey, or returning to the care of D, can keep him safe or can significantly alter his behaviours. It is reasonable to believe GG's behaviours will escalate and place both himself and others in danger over the next few years unless this pattern is disrupted. GG deserves to have the

best options available to him to allow him to receive the nurturing which he requires as a child. For the past 20 months he has experienced nocturnal activities, disrupted sleep patterns, eaten a restricted diet, engaged in no physical activity or education, and has been outside of adult care and supervision. It is not unreasonable to assume that if his unsafe behaviour continues he is likely to be deprived of his liberty in Jersey in piecemeal and unstructured ways which will not have the desired effect of changing his behaviours. c. GG is 15, his wishes and feelings should be afforded consideration by the Court. However, his neuro divergence coupled with his chaotic lifestyle means he struggles to make informed decisions and therefore his views should not be determinative. Although the Court is being asked to sanction a draconian interruption to GG's family life on balance this is the only outcome which has any chance of success for GG at this time." Law 15. Threshold findings have already been made as set out above.

16. The Court must apply Article 2 of the 2002 Law. GG's welfare is the paramount consideration, and the Court should have regard to the welfare checklist set out in Article 2 (3) of the 2002 Law. The Court should also consider contact arrangements and scrutinise the Care Plan.

17. Schedule 2 (4) 2002 Law provides that the Court should not give its approval for placement of a child to live outside Jersey unless it is satisfied as to the following: "(a) it would be in the child's best interests to live outside Jersey; (b) suitable arrangements have been, or will be, made for the child's reception and welfare in the country in which the child will live; (c) the child has consented to living in that country except where the Court is satisfied that the child does not have sufficient understanding to give or withhold consent; and (d) every person who has parental responsibility for the child has consented to the child living in that country except for a person whom the Court is satisfied cannot be found, is incapable of consenting or is withholding his or her consent unreasonably." 18. In considering whether the child has sufficient understanding the Court should consider the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in In the matter of Linda (Care proceedings) [2019] JCA 033 as follows: "The Court is required to make decisions on the upbringing of a child in his or her best interests, those best interests must be highly relevant in assessing the level of a child's understanding. It is right to conclude that the legislation assumed a child would want was in his or her best interests, in those circumstances if the child's views are inconsistent with his or her

best interests, the reasoning for those views will need to be compelling if the Court were to reach the conclusion that the child had a full understanding of what it meant to give or withhold consent." Evaluation and Reasons 19. We are grateful to all the parties and their advocates for their focus on the issues to be resolved. We recognise these proceedings have been very stressful and upsetting for D and of course for GG who has been subject to intervention from Children's Services and the Minister for some considerable time. We recognise that GG has been subject to an ICO which has not protected him from suffering and being at risk of suffering further significant harm. We accept D is very concerned about GG and dearly wishes he could return to her care. We also accept D is in regular contact with GG and that he has told her he does not necessarily consent to the placement in Place H. We recognise D is unhappy about the way in which GG transitioned to the unit in Place H and that she believes he was given no real choice in the matter.

20. We have already made findings in relation to threshold and indeed there is an acceptance that GG has been beyond parental control for a significant period. We accept and find that the Minister has been unable to protect GG from continuing to suffer and being at risk of suffering significant harm whilst subject to an ICO in Jersey. We are entirely satisfied it is appropriate that GG should be made subject to a final Care Order; as the Guardian has expressed, GG is now 15, he urgently needs safe appropriate contained and therapeutic care in order to make any progress given his specific needs and vulnerabilities. We accept the Guardian's analysis and adopt her reasoning as set out above. There is no other appropriate Order which can protect GG and allow him the space, time and opportunity to move forward and make something of his life in all the circumstances he has faced over the past few years. Whilst we accept GG may be somewhat ambivalent about the placement in Place H, we accept the Guardian's considered view on his behalf, and that this is the only potential placement which will meet his needs going forward. We accept and find that GG's needs cannot be met in any placement in Jersey at the present time.

21. The main issue in these proceedings is whether we should approve the Care Plan for GG to be placed at Accommodation F in Place H for the foreseeable future subject to the amendments of the Care Plan as agreed by the Minister. Given this is not agreed we make the following findings; (i) We are entirely satisfied it is in GG's best interests to be placed outside Jersey at Accommodation F in Place H. We have considered the recommendations of Dr Williams, the Guardian's grave concerns about GG's care in Jersey, the evidence of C and the update from the unit. There is no appropriate therapeutic placement which can meet GG's specific needs in Jersey; indeed since GG has been subject to an ICO and has remained in Jersey his needs have not been met appropriately; he has continued to suffer as well as being at risk of suffering significant harm. (ii) We are entirely satisfied the Minister has made appropriate arrangements for GG to live at Accommodation F and we do not accept GG was in some way tricked or left with little option but to agree to go in early January. It is clear that the unit had already spoken to GG in Jersey, GG visited in December and has settled as best he can. It is also clear to us that GG has to some extent voted with his feet in that he has not returned to Jersey for this hearing, and has remained at the unit in Place H and started to engage critically with

his key worker which is vitally important for him. Given the difficulties GG has had in care already as well as with C, it is crucial for GG to develop good relationships with caring adults and the best chance he has of doing this is to remain in a consistent reliable safe placement. We are encouraged to hear from C that arrangements can be made for D to go and see GG and that this will happen as soon as possible.

22. Having made the finding that it is in GG's best interests to live outside Jersey at Accommodation F and accepting the conclusions of Dr Williams, C and the Guardian we also bear in mind and find the following: (i) GG, due to his own vulnerabilities, is unable to appreciate what is in his best interests; (ii) GG has not specifically consented to a placement off island, but has not given any compelling reason to enable us to reach a conclusion that he has a full understanding of what it means to give his consent; we take into account GG has chosen to remain in Place H and at the placement; (iii) The Guardian supports the placement of GG in Place H, she has not suggested that GG has sufficient capacity to understand giving his consent, and it is vital that GG is given this opportunity. (iv) In the circumstances we are satisfied it is appropriate to find that GG does not have sufficient understanding of his best interests, and it is appropriate to override any objection that GG might put forward against consenting to his placement at Accommodation F.

23. In the circumstances we are also satisfied it is appropriate to dispense with the consent of D to the placement of GG at Accommodation F. Given the consensus of opinion by Dr Williams, the Minister, and the Guardian as to this being the appropriate, safe and only chance for GG to develop appropriate trusting relationships, receive necessary therapeutic assistance, re-engage in education, receive appropriate medical care, and engage in support in order to develop safe strategies for his future it is unreasonable for D to withhold her consent. We would hope that in due course D will understand this decision, and support GG in his placement to give him the best opportunity of making progress as outlined by Dr Williams and the Guardian. In all the circumstances we are satisfied it is necessary and appropriate to dispense with the consent of D. Conclusion 24. For the reasons set out above, we make the following Orders: (i) Final Care Order for GG; this is a permanent arrangement and should not be subject to variation unless GG's circumstances change significantly. D will be provided with appropriate information in relation to GG's circumstances through the LAC procedure. (ii) We approve contact arrangements as set out in the Care Plan, and that the Care Plan should be amended in accordance with the evidence of C to allow for GG to remain in placement for as long as this

meets his welfare needs. (iii) We are satisfied it is in the interests of GG that he should be placed in residential care at Accommodation F, Place H and that the requirements of Schedule 2 (4) 2002 Law are met. Authorities Children (Jersey) Law 2002. In the matter of Linda (Care proceedings) [2019] JCA 033 Page Last Updated: 26 Feb 2026 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII