Not the function of Administrative Court or judicial review to “usurp” role of Family Court, High Court says

Mrs Justice Jefford said: “It is quite clear that grounds 1, 2, and 3 are all matters for the Family Court and not for judicial review by the Administrative Court. It is open to the claimants to make an application under section 34 [of the Children Act 1989] in relation to contact or a renewed application under section 39 in relation to the care order, and, as I have already said, that would encompass any issues of the placement of the child.

“There is, therefore, an alternative remedy, and, indeed, a more appropriate remedy, available to the claimants and that in itself is a reason not to grant permission to bring a judicial review.”

Outlining the background to the case, Mrs Justice Jefford said the claimants first made a claim for judicial review in July 2025.

They are the parents of four children and the claim concerned, in particular, the eldest child. All children were taken into care towards the end of 2023 and final care orders were made by the court in late 2024.

The children were placed in two foster placements, with two siblings in each of the placements.

From the end of 2024, the claimants raised safeguarding concerns, and in February 2025, made an application for increased contact pursuant to section 34 of the Children Act 1989, and to discharge the care orders pursuant to section 39 of that Act.

The following month the defendant suspended all contact between parents and children. The claimants' case was that the local authority ought to have done so under section 34(4) by application to the court, but had failed to do so.

In June 2025, the claimants filed an urgent application for the reinstatement of contact and for the discharge of the care orders. Later that month, the eldest child was removed from their existing foster placement to a new placement out of area. The child was, therefore, separated from the sibling with whom they had previously shared a placement.

The claim for judicial review was made a few days after, and permission was later refused on the papers by Mr Justice Eyre.

A hearing was listed which resulted in reinstatement of contact by consent. There was a further and final hearing relating to both contact and the discharge of the care orders in September.

Mrs Justice Jefford said: “Turning then to this renewal application. Self-evidently, this application is listed as a renewal hearing, that is, an oral hearing renewing the application that was considered on the papers by Eyre J. The reality is that what the claimants now largely, albeit not entirely, seek to do is challenge further decisions which have been taken by the Local Authority since the hearing [in September].

“They have argued this ‘renewed application’ on four grounds. Ground 1 relates to a decision in October to change the frequency of contact, downgrading it from fortnightly to monthly contact. Ground 2 relates to the child's placement. Ground 3 alleges a failure to consider representations and the child's voice, which similarly relates to the decision in October, but also to the placement decision, and also encompasses issues of complaints' handling and disclosure. Ground 4 is the alleged cumulative effect of the failings of the Local Authority, resulting in a breach of Article 8.”

Turning to the first three grounds, the judge emphasised that they were all matters for the Family Court and not for judicial review by the Administrative Court.

Mrs Justice Jefford said: “It is open to the claimants to make an application under section 34 in relation to contact or a renewed application under section 39 in relation to the care order, and, as I have already said, that would encompass any issues of the placement of the child. There is, therefore, an alternative remedy, and, indeed, a more appropriate remedy, available to the claimants and that in itself is a reason not to grant permission to bring a judicial review.”

She continued: “It is not the function of the Administrative Court or a judicial review to usurp the role of the Family Court or to give directions on procedural conduct by the Local Authority. It is only the function of this court to address whether a decision is lawful, unlawful or irrational. However, this court will not do so where there is an alternative remedy available to the claimants.”

On ground 4, the judge could see “no arguable case” that there had been a breach of Article 8 rights.

Concluding the case, she said: “The decisions are either not the subject of the claim for judicial review, the remedy lies in the Family Courts, the orders sought from this court are beyond its jurisdiction, and it is not reasonably arguable that the Local Authority's actions have amounted to a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. Accordingly, this renewed application is dismissed.”