Summary: We cannot and will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in a step parent adoption assessment. We cannot investigate the Council’s production of reports for Court proceedings. And there is no significant injustice or fault by the Council’s conduct needing a further remedy, than the apologies already given.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council has avoidably delayed in completing a step parent adoption report. He says he has been distressed by this and it has caused a strain on his relationship with his child and mother.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint and the Council’s replies to him which it provided us with. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says that in June 2020 a Council officer contacted him to tell him the Council would be carrying out a step parent adoption assessment for his children. He says the children’s mother’s partner was applying to adopt them.
6. Mr X complained to the Council in early November 2020 that he had heard nothing more. The Council replied a month later. It apologised for the delays. It said this was caused by staffing problems. It said an officer had now been appointed. It said no Court order could be made without his knowledge or comments.
7. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s reply and asked for it to be escalated to the next stage of the Council’s complaints’ procedure. The Council replied at its second stage in early January 2021. It said the officer had now been in contact with Mr X. It apologised again for delay and for another officer not telephoning Mr X before they had left the Council’s employment. It said it was reviewing its step parent adoption assessment process.
8. Mr X complained again in early March. He said he had heard no more from the officer. The Council signposted Mr X to us.

Analysis

9. Step parent adoption assessments are carried out as part of the adoption Court process. The Court usually orders these. We cannot investigate the preparation, collation, and analysis of evidence, including reports written by social workers or other officers for court proceedings. We cannot investigate a report written previously but then used in later court proceedings. We cannot therefore investigate any delays in assessing for such a report. Or failed telephone calls in connection with it.
10. If the Court proceedings have not started, and never do, and the report is not used in any later proceedings, we still should not investigate this complaint.
• Mr X’s worry and distress is not significant enough injustice to Mr X to justify an investigation.
• The accepted faults are not significant enough to justify an investigation.
• The Council’s response to the complaint already represents a reasonable and proportionate outcome. It is unlikely we would seek more than the apologies already provided.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not and cannot investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot investigate reports for legal proceedings and the claimed injustice and fault is not significant enough, nor are we likely to add to the remedy already offered.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman